Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

REIGATE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH BILL

SOLIHULL CORPORATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Northern Ireland

Mr. Duffy: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on his official visit this month to the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): I visited the troops in Northern Ireland on 15th and 16th May. They continue to perform their difficult task with exemplary patience, determination and restraint and their morale remains remarkably high.

Mr. Duffy: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. Did he visit the Palace Barracks, Holywood, or the Girdwood Barracks in the centre of Belfast? They have acquired a notorious reputation in legal circles. Did he read the contention of the Sunday Times on 7th May that there is a wealth of evidence that there is still something wrong with Army methods of interrogation? Can he assure us that the Army is not lending itself to practices which may be counter-productive of the policies being pursued by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?

Lord Balniel: Yes, I visited one of those barracks, and I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he requests.

Mr. Pounder: Since my right hon. Friend is a regular visitor to the Army in Northern Ireland, may I ask him how his mood and assessment of the visit he made a few days ago compared with a visit he made on a previous occasion?

Lord Balniel: The Army's task is to further the Government's aim of reducing tension and violence. At the same time it remains the responsibility of the Army to assist the civil power in eliminating terrorism and violence and restoring law and order. Whenever military measures are deemed to be necessary, military measures which are effective and totally impartial will be taken.

Mr. Whitehead: If the right hon. Gentleman's discussion covered matter: leading to the reduction of tension and violence, will he comment on the actior of the Parachute Regiment yesterday in driving vehicles at high speed, as the Press reports, through a funeral procession? I recognise that funeral processions are provocative to the majority community in Northern Ireland, but is it not a fact that this sort of action must increase tension and violence'?

Lord Balniel: I cannot comment on the allegation the hon. Gentleman has made; I have not heard about it. What I do know is that the Parachute battalion, after two years' experience in Northern Ireland, is widely regarded as being one of the most experienced and efficient battalions in carrying out the law and order duties which have to be fulfilled. I also know that that battalion. over the last weekend, restored law and order in Ballymurphy with quite remarkable efficiency.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House why the military were not present yesterday al Machie's foundry when the workers were leaving? The foundry has always been a flashpoint and workers have been attacked continually when coming from their place of work. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 10 shots were fired at the workers and that four workers were injured? The workers at the foundry are greatly perturbed about the terrible situation which is arising.

Lord Balniel: The situation facing the security forces is very grave, but it is


quite impossible for them to be at every street in Northern Ireland. But whenever violence explodes or there is loss of life the security forces will take what steps they can to secure the restoration of law and order.

Mr. Winterton: asked the Minister of State for Defence what steps the British Army is currently taking to prevent the flow of terrorists, explosives and arms into Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic.

Lord Balniel: The security forces continue to take all practicable measures to control the Border.

Mr. Winterton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful answer. I recently paid a two-day visit to County Fermanagh, which is very exposed to the activities of the IRA. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are only about 70 soldiers in the whole of the county, of which only 35 are fighting soldiers? Does he not think it would be more sensible to control and patrol the Border to prevent large amounts of ammunition and explosives and large numbers of terrorists infiltrating into the North rather than to carry out difficult searches in the main centres of population?

Lord Balniel: While not completely accepting without checking the figures which my hon. Friend has given, I accept that the general principle on which the Army is controlling the Border is based upon patrols and the closing of a certain number of roads to canalise traffic where that is more easily checked. I am sure the House appreciates that the task of closing the Border would absorb immense numbers of troops. The inconvenience which would be caused can be gauged from the fact that 50,000 vehicles cross the Border every day. That is the scale of the problem which faces the security forces.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Will my right hon. Friend say whether, since the initiative, there has been any change in the level of activity from the Southern Ireland forces of Mr. Lynch?

Lord Balniel: The Government welcome the measures that were taken recently by the Government of the Republic, but we should welcome even greater co-operation from them in the future.

Mr. Duffy: Does the right hon. Gentle. man agree that a much more obvious step to take in respect of arms, and one which falls more readily within their competence and would be interpreted as an earnest of the Government's good intentions, would be to call in arms registered as being in private possession?

Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that many of the arms registered as being in private possession are used for the protection of individual people, too many of whom, alas. have been attacked in their own houses.

Mr. Powell: When my right hon. Friend says that all practicable measures are being taken, does he mean that no further measures of control are practicable?

Lord Balniel: if one is prepared to devote immense resources of manpower, it is always possible to take further measures. That is not regarded by Ministers responsible for defence policy as being the highest priority in which to deploy the troops who are in Northern Ireland for the preservation of law and order.

Mr. John Morris: Is the Army more effective now than it was three or six months ago in controlling terrorists, explosives and arms coming over the Border?

Lord Balniel: That is very difficult to quantify. One can measure to some extent the degree of improvement in control of explosives crossing the border by the fact that so many of the recent bombs which have been defused or which have exploded in the cities of Northern Ireland have been made out of components which are available within Northern Ireland and not out of gelignite. For that reason my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has introduced an order to control the products which can be used to make bombs.

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of State for Defeence on how many occasions since 12th August, 1969, soldiers stationed in Northern Ireland have claimed they have hit terrorists when returning gunfire on themselves; how many terrorists they claim to have killed or injured on these occasions; and how many of these casualties have been


arrested subsequently and how many bodies have been recovered.

Lord Balniel: I regret it is not possible to provide this information in the form requested, nor to provide it from 12th August, 1969.
Reports available to me indicate that since 19th January, 1971, a total of 142 people suspected of being terrorists are known to have been killed or injured and a further 329 are believed to have been killed or injured. Such casualties arose from a number of causes, including military gunfire, police gunfire and also various terrorist activities.
I understand that it is not possible to establish positively how many of the civilian casualties notified to the civil authorities were terrorists who had been shot by troops.

Mr. McMaster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is grave disquiet in Northern Ireland over the fact that almost daily the Army claims to have shot and injured or killed terrorists but is unable to recover their bodies? Does my right hon. Friend think it satisfactory that the degree of control over no-go or Republican-dominated areas of Northern Ireland is so weak that it is possible for terrorists who have been shot or injured to be spirited away under the noses of the troops? Will he take effective steps to establish a much better degree of control over the Republican areas of Northern Ireland?

Lord Balniel: I appreciate that it is difficult for laymen to understand why the claims of casualties are not substantiated by the bodies of the terrorists being found. The reason, as I am sure the House will appreciate, is that it would be wrong to expect the troops to expose themselves to additional danger simply to recover an assailant's body. I do not believe that anyone in the House would regard that as necessary.
On the wide issues raised by my hon. Friend, on 4th May my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made it clear that he would not be prepared to see any extension of no-go areas. It is correct that in some areas the enforcement of law and order is a grave problem indeed, but when military action is deemed to be necessary it will be taken promptly, effectively and completely impartially.

Mr. Fitt: The Minister said that 142 persons suspected of terrorist activities had been shot by the Army. May we have an indication of the source of that information? Do the figures come from military sources, from the RUC or from the Government of Northern Ireland? Is the Minister aware that by making this serious allegation—that 142 people suspected of terrorist activities have been shot—he may be jeopardising the claims of the dependants of those persons who are still living?

Lord Balniel: I do not follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. The information is collated from a variety of sources. It includes military, police and general information available in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kilfedder: Does my noble Friend have statistics covering the number of terrorists who have been injured or killed when firing from across the Border at troops in Northern Ireland? Is he aware of the concern that is felt in Northern Ireland about the spread of no-go areas and the fact that one Ulster newspaper has claimed that a no-go area has been established in the Clonard?

Lord Balniel: I do not have immediately available the figures which my hon. Friend seeks, but if he will table a Question I will endeavour to get them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be making a statement later this afternoon on the subject of security in Northern Ireland and will no doubt cover the other point raised by my hon. Friend.

Linesman

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister of State for Defence what is the total cost of the Linesman system of air defence radar to date.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Lord Lambton): The cost to 31st March, 1972, including payments due but not yet made, was£94 million.

Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful for that information, but is it not time that we looked round to see what a few other countries are doing in this regard, particularly the United States, and examined whether the cost of fitting some of their software to the Plessey radar might be


cheaper? Does the hon. Gentleman think that the job which Linesman is trying to do can be done at all?

Lord Lambton: Obviously we look everywhere possible to see whether we can bring down costs. It is not possible for me to give a full answer to the second part of the supplementary question.

Bacteriologists

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Minister of State for Defence what reductions in the number of bacteriologists employed by his Department he expects, following the Government's signing of the international Biological Weapons Convention.

Lord Balniel: None, Sir. The staff in question are not engaged in activities banned by the convention.

Mr. Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what these bacteriologists are employed in doing if their work is in no way connected with activities which under the convention are banned?

Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman knows from a previous answer which I gave him that the Ministry of Defence establishment consists of 44 scientific grade staff. The majority are employed at the Microbiological Research Establishment, Porton. The balance are employed at the Institute of Naval Medicine and the Royal Army Medical College, mainly in training and lecturing duties, and at the Admiralty Materials Laboratory.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that those of us who have visited the establishment at Porton cannot but have been impressed by the dedication of these people to the defence of this nation?

Lord Balniel: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The scientific staff are performing a task of very considerable importance for the defence of this country.

Atomic Weapons Research Establishment

Mr. Roderick: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will introduce a White Paper publishing the reasons for the transfer of control of the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at

Aldermaston from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Ministry of Defence and the implications for the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will publish in a White Paper the reasons for the transfer of the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston from the Department of Trade and Industry to the control of the Ministry of Defence, and also the effects of this transfer.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Ian Gilmour): No, Sir. The introduction of legislation for the transfer of the establishment will provide a full opportunity for further discussion of the reasons for the transfer.

Mr. Roderick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the concern felt by many Members about the difficulty of obtaining information from his Ministry? What assurance can he give that security will not be used as an excuse to reduce the Minister to silence on questions about Aldermaston?

Mr. Gilmour: I do not think the hon. Gentleman's opening remark was fair. I do not think there has been the difficulty he alleges. I am sure that any information which should be given will continue to be given under the new arrangement.

Mr. Allaun: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that some years ago the House was promised that the proportion of civil work at Aldermaston—I think about 20 per cent.—would be increased? Can he give an assurance that this increase will take place, despite the transfer to his Ministry, when industry engaged in peaceful uses is so greatly in need of increased research and development?

Mr. Gilmour: No, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. But civil use of atomic energy will in no way be prejudiced by this transfer.

Mr. John Morris: Can the hon. Gentleman assist us about the civil use of the resources? If this establishment comes under the Ministry of Defence, how can the Government ensure that the civil use rôle is not diminished and that the Ministry of Defence will not take a much larger share of valuable scientific


research resources? Why must we wait for legislation, whenever that may be introduced, before we can have the reasons for the transfer?

Mr. Gilmour: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is the same as the reason why the military use of atomic energy has not been prejudiced under the present arrangement. There is continual consultation between the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry. The basic reasons for the transfer were given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 5th August last year. In brief, 80 per cent. of the work is for the Ministry of Defence, and the bringing of the AWRE into the Ministry of Defence will facilitate the rationalisation of research and defence establishments.

Mr. Booth: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he has completed the preparation of legislation for the purpose of transferring the control of the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: It will not now be possible to carry through legislation during the present Session. The Government intend to introduce a Bill early in the forthcoming Session with a view to making the transfer in the spring of 1973.

Mr. Booth: Does not the Minister agree that it is regrettable that the position of staff engaged in research and development at the AWRE should remain under a shadow until next Session because of the mess in which the Government find themselves with their legislation and the way they have arranged the legislative programme? Will the Minister give an assurance that nothing will be done by his Department in anticipation of the Bill and that, until the House has considered it, there will remain to the House full accountability for the use of scientific staff at Aldermaston as is the case while the AWRE is under the Department of Trade and Industry?

Mr. Gilmour: Any delay in the Government's legislative programme is a matter of great regret for the whole House. There are some disadvantages

in this case, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that negotiations are in progress with the staff and trade union sides and I am hopeful that a satisfactory conclusion will be reached. Meanwhile the ordinary processes of parliamentary accountability are not affected.

Royal Navy and Royal Marines (Discharge Option)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of State for Defence in view of the recent relaxation of rules allowing junior naval ratings and Royal Marine other ranks to opt out of the Service, if he will now consider altering the 12-week option during recruit training.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Peter Kirk): In introducing the notice engagement we took into account such factors as the recruit discharge option. We concluded, however, that the reasons for the current three months' period for adults and six months' period for juniors remain valid.

Mr. Wall: Are not a great number of potential recruits lost at this option time? Would not it be better to have the option at the end of recruit training instead of in the middle, as it is now?

Mr. Kirk: No, I think it is better to have it where it is. We are anxious not to lose more than we have to, and for that reason we are bringing forward the award of the green beret to just before the three-month option period.

Polaris Bases

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of State for Defence if, following the resolution recently carried by the Labour Party women's annual conference, and also by the Glasgow City Council, copies of which are in his possession, he will consider ending the British and United States Polaris bases in Scotland.

Lord Balniel: No, Sir.

Mr. Allaun: Do not these bases make the British people a sitting duck for a nuclear bomb, and is this so impossible in the light of President Nixon's brinkmanship in Haiphong harbour? Would not removal of the bases enable Britain to give a lead towards détente and nuclear disarmament?

Lord Balniel: It has been the policy of successive Governments, including the Government which the hon. Gentleman supported, to maintain a nuclear deterrent. The whole purpose of a deterrent, of which these submarines form a part, is precisely to prevent the dangers of nuclear war, or any war. In that sense the submarines play an invaluable part in the defence of the Western world.

Mr. Judd: While the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) must be taken seriously, does not the Minister agree that longer-term issues are at stake? Will he assure the House that nothing he has said this afternoon implies an irrevocable commitment to second-generation Polaris?

Lord Balniel: I cannot see how anything I have said this afternoon can conceivably imply that.

Mr. Baxter: Is the Minister aware that notwithstanding what he has said about the last Labour Government, or any other Government, the people of Scotland are greatly concerned about the dangers to them and even to future generations? The Government of the day should take this very seriously because an upheaval could occur, as my hon. Friend has suggested, and the nation that would be the loser would be Scotland. Will the Minister take this into consideration?

Lord Balniel: As a Scotsman I profoundly disagree with the hon. Gentleman's reflection of Scottish opinion. He will be glad to know that I am taking the opportunity before too long of discussing the matter with a deputation from Glasgow Corporation.

HMS "Reclaim"

Mr. Laurance Reed: asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has to replace HMS "Reclaim".

Mr. Kirk: HMS "Reclaim" still has a number of years of service ahead of her. The question of a replacement is under study.

Mr. Reed: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Sea-bed Arms Control Treaty comes into operation this very

day? is he also aware that the need to verify the teams of this treaty might arise more rapidly than is expected, as American action in mining the ports of North Vietnam amply demonstrate and does he not consider it appropriate for the Navy to expand its under-water engineering capability?

Mr. Kirk: We are at present developing a new technique of deep diving and investigating the equipment needed for it. It would be better to await a replacement for HMS "Reclaim" until we have finished that investigation.

Mr. Dalyell: Has HMS "Reclaim" got more than five years to go?

Mr. Kirk: She can go on well into the 1970s, yes.

Widows' Pensions

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a progress report on the consideration which he is giving to an increase in pensions for the widows of Servicemen who retired from the Services before 1st September, 1950.

Mr. Kirk: As I promised in the Navy debate on 10th April, I am giving full consideration to the representations made on behalf of widows of Servicemen who retired before 1st September, 1950. I will write to the hon. Member and to other hon. Members who have recently raised this with me when a conclusion has been reached.

Mr. Judd: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he realise that his more optimistic remarks in the context of the Defence Estimates debate have raised many people's hopes? This section of the community is suffering rather badly. Can we expect an early outcome to his consideration?

Mr. Kirk: Yes, I do not think it will take very much longer.

Expenditure

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Minister of State for Defence if the Government will approve an increase in the amount to be spent on defence of a further£ per cent. of the gross national product in the next financial year, so that British Servicemen may have the best possible equipment.

Lord Balniel: No, Sir. The standard of equipment now coming into service with the British Forces is already very high and we shall continue to seek to obtain the best possible value for money from the resources available for the procurement of defence equipment.

Mr. Loveridge: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's answer, but is not manpower taking an ever-increasing proportion of the total amount spent on defence, thus leaving less and less for equipment? My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said in 1966 that a nation that could not devote 6½ per cent. of its gross national product to defence was not fit to take its part in the defence of the free world. Has the Government's view changed?

Lord Balniel: The proportion of our defence budget which is spent on equipment compares very favourably with that of our European allies, but my hon. Friend is quite correct. The question of the proportion which should be spent on equipment and the proportion which should be spent on manpower is a constant and recurring problem. My hon. Friend will appreciate that were his Question to be answered in the affirmative it would mean an increase of£250 million in the defence budget.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a situation where the Government are charging admission to museums and galleries at a cost of£1 million, doing away with free school milk at a cost of£9 million and imposing VAT on childrens' shoes at a cost of£12 million, the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Loveridge) is intolerable and that the Government would be far better advised to harmonise our defence costs down to those of the other Common Market countries when we enter?

Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that this country spends on defence 5½ per cent. of our gross national product. The proportion of the Soviet GNP which is spent on defence is about 8 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should sometimes bear in mind that defence is one of the highest priorities of a democratic community.

RAF Support Command

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the logistic supply capability of Royal Air Force Support Command; and whether he will make a statement.

Lord Lambton: Yes, Sir. Air Support Command already has a substantial capability and this will increase when the Puma force builds up to full strength later this year. The question of further increasing this capability is kept under review.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the load-carrying capacity of the Andover for short-range logistic support? Is there not a good case to be made out for a medium-lift helicopter to support our forward Harrier squadrons?

Lord Lambton: There is a very good case to be made out for a medium-lift helicopter: the trouble is the money to pay for it.

Air Defence

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Minister of State for Defence what measures he proposes to take to improve the effectiveness of Great Britain's air defences.

Lord Lambton: The improving of our effectiveness is a continuing process and I have nothing to add at present to what I told the House in the Air Estimates debate on 2nd March.—[Vol. 832, c. 774–5.]

Mr. Wilkinson: While thanking my noble Friend for that reply, may I remind him that the number of live intercepts carried out by No. 11 Fighter Group of Strike Command last year was the highest in recent years and that Strike Command also has responsibility for defending the Fleet at sea? Will he do his best to augment the number of fighter aircraft available to the Royal Air Force?

Lord Lambton: Again, one would be anxious to do this, but one must take into consideration the ceiling of the budget to which one is working.

British Aircraft (Foreign Weapons)

Mr. Mackie: asked the Minister of State for Defence w what extent foreign guns are being fitted to British planes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The Phantom Mark 2 is the only military aircraft at present in service which is fitted with a foreign gun. This gun has no British equivalent and had already been developed for the American Phantoms. The MRCA will be fitted with a German gun which is under development by Mauser.

Mr. Mackie: Assuming that the Minister has heard of the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield, and remembering that in spite of today's good figures concerning unemployment we still have the highest unemployment that we have ever had in Enfield, would it not have been better to have had this gun produced in a British factory?

Mr. Gilmour: There was no suitable British gun available or under development. This decision was made in November or December, 1970, and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the present Government could hardly have got a gun going in that time. There have not been any recent heavy redundancies at Enfield, there are none in contemplation and the future workload is very healthy. The hon. Gentleman probably knows that Enfield is doing some work-sharing with Mauser on the gun which is under development.

Mr. Winterton: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will endeavour to persuade the appropriate powers and authorities-that-be that to buy a higher percentage of British defence equipment and needs from British suppliers would further help the dramatic drop in unemployment in this country?

Mr. Gilmour: I think that the implication of my hon. Friend's question is mistaken. We already buy a high proportion of our equipment needs from Britain, and British industry has had a fair share of the equipment chosen for the MRCA.

Mr. Mackie: In view of the number of decisions of the previous Government which the present Government have

undone, alteration of this decision would not be objected to at all.

Mr. Gilmour: Unfortunately, owing to the decisions or non-decision taken by the Government which the hon. Gentleman was proud to serve, we had no option in this matter.

Gases and Defoliants

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of State for Defence what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to equipping Her Majesty's forces with CS and other gases and defoliants for use in warfare.

Lord Balniel: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 27th March by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.—[Vol. 834, c. 11–12.]

Mr. Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those answers are entirely unsatisfactory because they fail to give any information? As the object of Question Time is to get information, why conceal it? Will the right hon. Gentleman think again about this and take the view that we should be given a little more information with regard to what is happening about the equipment of British forces in this respect?

Lord Balniel: I think that the hon. Gentleman should study the answers, which are remarkably informative considering the nature of the Questions.

Harrier Aircraft

Mr. Warren: asked the Minister of State for Defence what changes need to be made to the Harrier aircraft to make it suitable for service with the Royal Navy.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Although trials have shown that the Harrier can readily be operated from ships at sea, the present version of the Harrier was designed for close support of ground operations. Changes in its weapons, avionics and other systems would be needed to adapt it for maritime warfare.

Mr. Warren: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, may I suggest that after 10 years of sea trials it ought to have been possible to draw up a specification for an aircraft which the Royal Navy


desperately needs and which is being denied to it by inter-Service rivalry?

Mr. Gilmour: That is quite wrong, with all due respect to my hon. Friend. Inter-Service rivalry is not the cause. This is a complex matter, as my hon. Friend knows, and we have to take a lot of matters into account before we reach a final decision.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the proposed change of cost per unit?

Mr. Gilmour: As we have not decided what to do I cannot answer that question.

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Minister of State for Defence what measures he is taking to promote the sale of Harrier aircraft to the United States armed forces.

Mr. Gilmour: Firm orders have been placed for 60 aircraft and for long-dated items for a further 30. The purchase of additional Harriers as recommended by the United States Administration in their defence budget for 1973 has not yet been authorised by Congress.
Detailed information on the Harrier has been given to the United States armed services as well as opportunities for flight evaluation. An American company has been licensed to manufacture the aircraft.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best possible fillip for export sales of Harriers to the United States Navy and Marine Corps, as well as to other navies and air forces, would be for Her Majesty's Government to place a further RAF order and also to make a decision in principle about a Royal Navy order for this aeroplane?

Mr. Gilmour: I do not think the United States Government would be greatly impressed by a decision which was implicitly designed to influence their procurement policies. It is better that we should take our own decisions on the particular merits involved.

First World War (Records)

Mr. Concannon: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will look at the records of the British soldiers shot for desertion or cowardice in the First World War and have these records destroyed so as not to allow the names of these soldiers ever to be released.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith): I have examined a sample of these records which are lodged in the Public Record Office. They are closed to the public and will remain so for so long as is necessary to spare the feelings of close relatives. In view of the historical value of the records I am not prepared to recommend their destruction.

Mr. Concannon: I am rather disappointed at that reply. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that according to information one can gather a large percentage of those who were executed should have been in hospital receiving treatment rather than be executed? Would it not be better to destroy the records of those who fit so much into that category?

Mr. Johnson Smith: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps I may ask him to bear in mind that the present policy for handling records of this kind attempts to strike a balance between the protection of innocent individuals from unnecessary pain and the preservation of material which, after all, is part of our history and should not be suppressed for ever. I am satisfied that that approach is the right one and I think that most people would agree.

Mr. Concannon: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

White Paper on Defence

Captain W. Elliot: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the adequacy of the information conveyed to the House in the White Paper on Defence; and if he will make a statement.

Lord Balniel: Yes, Sir; I regard the Statement on the Defence Estimates as a most informative document.

Captain Elliot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when we raise various matters in defence and other debates we are always told that we shall not fight a war alone and that our allies will assist us. I am particularly worried about the state of our maritime defences. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would consider attaching to the next Defence White Paper an assessment of the forces that


would be available from other countries to help this country in the event of another war.

Lord Balniel: I shall consider the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend, because the purpose of the Defence White Paper is to provide as full information for the House as is possible. Clearly one does not want to have a document which is vast and unreadable, and so we have tried to compress it into a crisp and easily readable style. But I shall consider suggestions from my hon. and gallant Friend and, indeed, from any other hon. Member.

Mr. Evelyn King: In the light of the White Paper, and in the light of the huge number of troops in Northern Ireland, would not my right hon. Friend agree that either we have over-recruited in the past or that other commitments are hideously under-manned? Which statement is true, and what remedial measures has my right hon. Friend in mind?

Lord Balniel: I should have thought that neither statement was true. We have not over-recruited in the past. Indeed, on coming into office one of the major problems which we had to face was that of serious under-recruitment by the previous Administration. The position is that recruiting is reasonably satisfactory and improving, but undoubtedly the strain on the Army as a result of the problems in Northern Ireland is very real.

Mr. John Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman face the fact that the continued deployment of troops in Northern Ireland for such a long time undoubtedly must have its effect on our defences in Germany? Will he face that problem when the next Defence White Paper is set out so that we can understand the implications of this long-drawn-out involvement which perhaps had not been anticipated some months ago?

Lord Balniel: I shall bear in mind the powerful argument which the right hon. Gentleman is developing for increasing our defence forces.

Hovercraft

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of hovercraft as patrol vessels in the Royal Navy.

Mr. Kirk: Hovercraft are being evaluated in various naval roles, including their use as patrol vessels. But no plans have been made to introduce a class of hovercraft into service in this rôle.

Mr. Wall: Are investigations being conducted into the use of hovercraft for fishery protection and anti-submarine work?

Mr. Kirk: Yes, Sir. We are evaluating hovercraft generally, including their use for mine counter-measures.

Mr. Judd: Does the Minister agree that the regulations recently issued covering the civil use of hovercraft inevitably raise doubts about the versatility of these craft? Will he take an early opportunity to clear up any such doubts so far as the Service is concerned?

Mr. Kirk: As far as I know, the regulations do not affect the 11 hovercraft which are in service, but if my hon. Friend cares to put down a Question I will look into the matter.

Vickers, Barrow (Dispute)

Mr. Booth: asked the Minister of State for Defence what delay he anticipates in the completion of current defence contracts placed with Vickers Limited, as a result of the lock-out of members of the Amalgamated Society of Boilermakers, Shipwrights, Blacksmiths and Structural Workers at Vickers Limited Shipbuilding and Engineering Groups, Barrow-in-Furness.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: No lock-out has yet taken place at the Vickers Limited Shipbuilding and Engineering Groups, Barrow-in-Furness. The question of anticipated delays as a result of one is, therefore, hypothetical, and I do not believe that it would be helpful at this stage to speculate about the possible consequences. But plainly we view with concern any resultant delays in the completion of current naval contracts which include valuable export orders as well as important work for the Royal Navy.

Mr. Booth: Why has not the Minister taken the trouble to establish why no boilermaker has worked in Vickers at Barrow for the last five weeks? Is he aware that the boilermakers are out as a result of a lock-out? Is he further aware that the firm has announced its


intention to close production facilities at Barrow on 5th June? Will he urge Vickers to enter into negotiations, since it has consistently refused to do so since the turn of the year, on the issue of this claim? Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that if this firm closes there will be disastrous consequences, both economic and social, for my constituents and that such a step would have a most serious and adverse affect on the defence programme?

Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. There has not yet been a lock-out. The boilermakers have been on strike since 11th April. The management has said that if the strike continues it will have to lock out the rest of the employees, who represent 90 per cent. of the work force, from 5th June. We are obviously very concerned over this matter and hope that the boilermakers will join the rest of the unions, who, as I say, comprise 90 per cent. of the rest of the staff, in accepting the terms that have been offered.

GRADUATE ENGINEERS

Ql. Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will give the figures of graduate engineers taken on by business firms in 1970, 1971 and 1972; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the changes in the figures.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I will, with permission, circulate the detailed information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The best figures available are those collected by the University Grants Committee on the basis of inquiries sent to new graduates. They show that the proportion of graduates in engineering and technology entering industry and commerce has been declining since 1968, the earliest year for which figures are available. The main cause is the relatively low level of investment and demand in recent years, which our economic measures have been designed to correct. I believe that the fall in unemployment announced at midday today shows that these measures are beginning to prove effective.

Mr. Dalyell: Do not these same UGC figures show that between 1970 and 1971

there was an increase in unemployment in graduates in the applied sciences from 2·9 per cent. to 6·7 per cent.? In these circumstances how is the Budget designed to help the science-based industries?

The Prime Minister: As far as the figures are concerned, at the end of 1971 according to the UGC 3·9 per cent. of that year's graduates were still seeking jobs. That figure does not correspond with those given by the hon. Gentleman.
The measures for reflation are, of course, designed to bring about greater investment; and it is natural that in concerns which are engaged in providing heavy and sophisticated equipment for investment more graduates should be employed. This is the expected impact of the Government's measures.

Mr. Tom King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United Kingdom is not alone in this problem of graduate unemployment and that it is particularly acute in the United States? Is he further aware that when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry goes to Japan, which is one of our major industrial competitors, he will find that a considerable number of Japanese companies have cancelled their total graduate recruitment in the past year?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. This problem is not limited to this country. However, as I have told the House before, there are measures which can be taken to improve the situation. One is to persuade firms that they should in any case employ a higher proportion of graduates, a point which I put to the CBI last Tuesday. Another possibility is to persuade firms to do what we in the Government service are doing, which is to give scientists and engineers wider opportunities of employment, particularly on the administrative side.

Mr. Harold Wilson: When circulating the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT, will the Prime Minister make clear what he means by 1969–70 or 1970–71? Does he mean the academic year September to June or the end of the year, so allowing a reasonable period after graduation for placement? Will he make that clear in the statement which he proposes to circulate in HANSARD?
A point arises as a result of previous exchanges in the House. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has yet been able to get any evidence about the difficulties or fears of difficulties by technological universities in regard to being able to find places in industry for their sandwich courses, whether for sponsored students or students they place themselves?

The Prime Minister: I shall be making that clear in the statement which I propose to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

GRADUATES IN ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY



Academic Year



1967–68
1968–69
1969–70
1970–71


1. Total graduating
…
9,269
9,435
10,480
10,976


2. of which entered home employment
…
5,514
5,305
5,740
5,578


3. of which entered industry and commerce
…
4,789*
4,544
4,760
4,302


4. Line 3 as a percentage of Line 1
…
51·7 %
48·2 %
45·4 %
39·2 %

Source: UGC, First Employment of University Graduates.

The figures are based on inquiries made towards the end of each year in respect of those graduating at the end of the preceding academic year. Figures for the academic year 1971–72 are not yet available.

* An adjustment has been made to the UGC published figures in order to bring in the Post Office

HUNTERSTON (FEASIBILITY STUDIES)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the arrangements for co-ordination between the Scottish Office and the Department of Trade and Industry with regard to consideration of the findings of the feasibility studies being undertaken at Hunterston.

The Prime Minister: When the feasibility studies being undertaken by the Hunterston Development Company are available they will be considered carefully by both Departments.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Prime Minister accept that we need some haste in getting the results of this study? It is of vital importance to solve the problem of what industry should be sited at Hunterston. In particular, will the right hon. Gentleman apply his mind to the issue of whether the area can still be scheduled for either mini-mills or a new steel complex?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the need to have a report as speedily as possible. I understand that an interim report is expected in June and a full report by the end of October. Detailed consideration will be given to those re-

The UGC figure describes the position at the end of 1971 of those who graduated at the end of the preceding academic year, and, as I have said, at the end of 1971 the proportion of graduates unemployed was 3·9 per cent. As for the fears to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has taken action and is urging industry to look to the future, in the light of our reflationary measures, and to allow courses to be taken up.

Following is the information:

ports, but I understand that those concerned with the feasibility study will take into account the other possibilities which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Sir F. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that whatever decision is taken in regard to Hunterston, due regard is had for the amenities of the Clyde and for the views and securities of the local population?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already demonstrated that very clearly by the inquiry which was held before he gave any planning permission for the Hunterston area, and I am sure he will continue to bear the environmental factors very much in mind.

Mr. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the findings of this feasibility study will be made public and that we have an opportunity of discussing them in the House before decisions on them are taken?

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly look into that question. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is a feasibility study which is being carried on by a development company.

Mr. Ross: With the help of the Scottish Office.

The Prime Minister: Yes, with the help of the Scottish Office and the Department of Trade and Industry.

DEFENCE DEPARTMENT LAND

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Department for the Environment and the Ministry of Defence concerning land use; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. There should be even closer co-ordination when the new Property Services Agency, which will incorporate the lands organisation of the Ministry of Defence, is set up in the Department of the Environment on 1st September.

Mr. Davis: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Ministry of Defence at present occupies about 4,000 acres of land in London which could be used for housing purposes? Is it not paradoxical that, as the leader of the London Boroughs Association, Alderman Sherman, has commented, while the Government found it quite easy to move out of their bases east of Suez, they have found it well nigh impossible to move out of their barracks west of Shoreditch?

The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact, in the last five years some 1,300 acres of defence lands has been sold to local authorities in the London area alone, and practically the whole of this has been used for housing. As it becomes possible to give up more, my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will do so. When the inquiry under Lord Nugent is completed, we shall see the whole position.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: As we are one of the most densely populated countries in the world, would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is need of an acre-by-acre survey of all land in Britain and that there is no better place to start than by examining the 560,000 acres in the ownership of the Ministry of Defence?

The Prime Minister: We set up the committee of inquiry under Lord Nugent

very soon after coming into office to carry out precisely the examination for which my hon. Friend has asked, and I expect that committee to report before the end of this year. In the meantime, if any land becomes immediately available, the Ministry of Defence will take the necessary action to make it available for disposal, especially for housing.

PRICE RESTRAINT

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the progress of his discussions with representatives of the Confederation of British Industry concerning the future of the price restraint scheme.

The Prime Minister: When I met representatives of the CBI on 8th May they indicated a widespread willingness among their members to continue price restraint provided that there was a good prospect of trade union response. I believe that, after carrying through and policing a policy of price restraint for over nine months, the CBI is entitled to expect some response from the unions.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Can he shed any light on the reports this morning suggesting that the establishment of new conciliation machinery is regarded as the quid pro quo for the renewal of this scheme? If this is so, in view of the solid contribution that conciliators and arbitrators, from the industrial disputes tribunal right down to Lord Wilberforce, have made to the progress of inflation, would not this be a high price to pay, particularly for the renewal of a scheme which has created a fair amount of chaos in the finances of nationalised industries?

The Prime Minister: I know of no arrangement such as my hon. Friend suggests. Regarding the price restraint policy of the CBI, as I have told the House we have discussed with the TUC and the CBI the question of the future development of conciliation machinery. In this respect I have made it clear, both publicly and privately, that the basic interests of the consumer must be represented, and both the CBI and the TUC recognise this.

BELGIAN PRIME MINISTER (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement following his recent meeting with the Prime Minister of Belgium.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister what discussions of defence matters he had with the Belgian Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: I was very pleased to welcome M. Eyskens to London on 2nd May. We had a full discussion of the future of the enlarged Community, with particular regard to the European summit conference in October. The details of our talks must remain confidential.

Mr. Adley: I am grateful for that answer. Notwithstanding the most encouraging fall in unemployment figures today, is not the example of Belgium and the Common Market to be most welcomed? I think I am right in saying that in the five years after Belgium joined, there was simultaneously a dramatic increase in the growth of gross national product and a dramatic fall in unemployment. Is not this country's best hope for the future growth of employment to follow the example of Belgium?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend's general thesis. It is true that the growth of the gross national product in Belgium between 1965 and 1970 was more than twice that of the United Kingdom during that period. But, even so, the growth in France and Italy was greater and the general average of the Community was higher.

Mr. Meacher: When the Prime Minister has discussions on defence matters with EEC leaders, is not it clear that his purpose in seeking the repeal of the McMahon Act and an end to the restrictions on the supply of United Kingdom atomic information is only to share it with France? If that is so, is not that blatantly contrary to the non-proliferation treaties to which Britain was a signatory?

The Prime Minister: This was not a matter which I discussed with M. Eyskens.

DRAINAGE (RESIDENTIAL AREAS)

Dr. Marshall: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for the Environment on the provision of public funds for drainage of residential areas; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Dr. Marshall: Is it not time that there was in this country a full administrative integration of drainage services in the same way as is now proposed for water services?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentle. man may wish to argue this case. I have not seen convincing arguments that such a measure ought to be introduced. But if it should prove to be so, I am perfectly prepared to consider it. At present I do not see the evidence for it.

CONFEDERATION OF BRITISH INDUSTRY (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Duffy: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his meeting with the Confederation of British Industry on 8th May.

Mr. Ashton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his talks at Downing Street with the Confederation of British Industry on Monday, 8th May.

The Prime Minister: Together with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Employment I met representatives of the CBI on 8th May. We carried forward our examination of current economic issues, including industrial relations policy, in the light of my earlier discussions with the CBI and with the TUC. As to CBI views on the future of price restraint, I would refer the hon. Members to the Answer I gave earlier today to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne).

Mr. Duffy: I noted that answer with great interest. But is the Prime Minister


aware that conciliation was reported as the dominant topic of those talks? The right hon. Gentleman has pursued this theme vigorously in public statements since then. How does he explain his anxiety, scarcely before the ink of the Industrial Relations Act is dry? Has he already lost confidence in that Act or does he see it as an obstacle to agreement between the CBI and the TUC, without which conciliation is impossible?

The Prime Minister: In the context of the Industrial Relations Act, conciliation has to be carried on and the Act specifically provides for it. The discussion we have had with the TUC and the CBI has been about what the machinery for that conciliation should be.

Mr. Tapsell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, contrary to the report which appears on the front page of The Times today, there is very strong support indeed for the Government's policies to curb both inflation and unemployment?

The Prime Minister: I am absolutely certain that that is so, and today's figures show that the measures we have taken are now bearing fruit. A reduction of 103,000 in the figure of unemployed in one month is certainly proof of the effectiveness of our policies.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many industrialists have indicated that they would prefer to work with the trade unions outside the Industrial Relations Act? Does not the Prime Minister consider that it ought to be more voluntary than ever now, instead of trying to foist this Act down the throats of industrialists and trade unionists?

The Prime Minister: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The evidence of the desire among not only industrialists but also trade unionists to have order brought into industrial relations has been widespread for a long time, and this is what the Act has done.

Mr. Redmond: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the CBI has always respected the rule of law and will always do so? In that respect, would it not be better if the right hon. Gentleman the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were to encourage the trade unions to use the Industrial Relations Act in the interests

of their members instead of his coming very close to what appeared to me to be contempt of court in a speech last night?

The Prime Minister: I think it is true that the CBI has urged its members to observe the Industrial Relations Act. I think that the trade unions themselves are now more and more adhering to the measures in that Act.

Mr. Ewing: Is the Prime Minister claiming that the highest May unemployment figures since 1930 are a direct result of the Government's economic policies?

The Prime Minister: What I am saying is that I am sorry right hon. and hon. Members opposite so obviously regret a reduction of 103,000.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 22ND MAY—Second Reading of the Industry Bill.

Remaining stages of the Overseas Investment and Export Guarantees Bill.

Second Reading of the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Bill.

TUESDAY, 23RD MAY—Supply (19th allotted day): There will be a debate on Steel.

Motion on the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order.

WEDNESDAY, 24TH MAY—Further progress in Committee on the European Communities Bill.

THURSDAY, 25TH MAY—Remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill.

FRIDAY, 26TH MAY—It will be proposed that the House should rise for the Whitsun Adjournment until Monday. 5th June.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome the fact that he took notice of the point made from this side of the House last week that the Criminal Justice Bill was not likely to


make progress in the time then suggested? Is he aware that we on this side will do our best to ensure that the work on this very important Bill is completed by a reasonable hour?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the debate on the steel industry on Tuesday is to take place on an Opposition Motion? The Motion should be available to hon. Members tonight.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say at this stage when he expects to have the debate on the Whitsun Adjournment?

Mr. Carr: I regret that I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a precise answer to that last question at the moment.
I confirm that the debate on the steel industry will take place on an Opposition Motion. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for facilitating the debate on a Supply Day on this occasion.

Sir D. Renton: Can we have a debate on the future reorganisation of water supplies and the future of land drainage before the Government make final decisions on these important matters?

Mr. Carr: Clearly not next week, but I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that I will ensure that that is very seriously considered by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Foley: When are we likely to receive the Report of the Pearce Commission, and what provisions have been made for debating this subject? Is it not intolerable that Mr. Smith and many other people around the world will have sight of the Pearce Report before hon. Members on both sides have had a chance to examine it?

Mr. Carr: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman in his comment about "many other people around the world". To answer the question on business, which is the relevant one for me, it is certainly hoped that the Pearce Commission Report will be published next week, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will make a statement about it, perhaps on Tuesday, but certainly next week before the House rises for the Whitsun Recess. As for a debate, I think it will probably be for the convenience

of both sides of the House to have a chance to study the report following its publication and my right hon. Friend's statement, but, clearly, there will have to be a debate and, I imagine, fairly early after we return from the Whitsun Recess.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my right hon. Friend recall that a few weeks ago in business questions I asked his predecessor whether it would be possible for the Chairman of Ways and Means to make a rather earlier provisional selection of Amendments for the European Communities Bill, to which my right hon. Friend the previous Lord President of the Council gave a sympathetic response? Will my right hon. Friend follow this up and see whether that can be achieved?

Mr. Carr: I take note of what my right lion. and learned Friend says, and I will certainly speak to the Chairman of Ways and Means about it.

Mr. David Steel: Does the Leader of the House recognise that hon. Members are restless since the report has appeared in the Press that the Report of the Pearce Commission has been sent out officially to Mr. Smith? Although the debate on this matter may properly wait for some days, both the statement by the Secretary of State and the publication of the report should occur this week.

Mr. Carr: I cannot accept that, but I repeat my promise that the statement will be made next week, perhaps on Tuesday.

Rev. Ian Paisley: When are we likely to have a debate on Northern Ireland? Is the Leader of the House aware that daily shootings and murders are taking place in Northern Ireland and that the people there are greatly perturbed as Stormont is no longer in existence and these matters cannot be ventilated by their public representatives? Can he give an assurance that the people of Northern Ireland are not to be forsaken and that their plight is to be considered and time will be given for discussion of a very serious situation which could lead to the most bloody of civil wars before the House resumes after Whitsun?

Mr. Carr: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am having discussion with all concerned about how we can best deal with these matters. My right hon.


Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be making a statement in a few minutes' time. I believe I can also help the House by saying that it is my right hon. Friend's hope that he will be able to make statements on most Thursdays when he is not top of the list for Questions.
This may be a little unprecedented, but perhaps I may also say—I hope I shall not have to eat my words—that I hope in my next business statement to include time for Northern Ireland business.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Did the right hon. Gentleman observe that on Tuesday last the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stated that between June, 1970, and March, 1972, Britain's food index increased by 17·2 per cent? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same Minister said in March, 1971, that "we"—presumably meaning, the Conservative Government—"are getting on top of inflation"? Is it the intention of the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement next week explaining these apparent contradictions?

Mr. Carr: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would desire to be able to debate this matter. Unfortunately, I shall not be able to find time for him to do so next week. I can confirm—thank goodness—that the rise in prices is slowing down.

Mr. Hastings: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful to the House if we could have a statement, if not even a debate, on progress on the Third London Airport project at Maplin? This is, after all, one of the largest developments this century, with ramifications for many sectors of our national life. Is he aware that there is a great deal of uncertainty, and even apprehension, about how things are going?

Mr. Carr: I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I should have thought that hon. Members could keep this subject in mind as a very good one for a Private Members' day some time in the future.

Mr. Lomas: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to

Early-Day Motion No. 279, which stands in my name, which is an all-party Motion which has been on the Order Paper for 28 consecutive sitting days? The Motion has been signed by 108 hon. Members from all three major parties.

[That this House urges the Government to set up a research institute under the auspices of the Medical Research Council to inquire into alternative methods of research not involving the use of animals.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman promise that we shall have a debate either before Whitsun or soon afterwards?

Mr. Carr: I cannot promise any time for a debate. I should hope that this, too, would be a typical subject for a Private Members' day.

Mr. John Hall: Can we have an early debate on metrication before the country becomes committed to this change without the consent of Parliament?

Mr. Carr: I am sure that this is a subject which the House might wish to debate at some time, but I cannot see any hope of doing so in the near future.

Mrs. Castle: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when we may expect a further statement on contaminated dextrose solution? A fortnight ago I asked the Secretary of State for Social Services to let us have it as soon as his inquiries were completed. He promised to discuss it and arrange it through the usual channels.

Mr. Carr: I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend about this, and I understand that he hopes to make a statement about it next week.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Would my right hon. Friend place us all in his debt by warning hon. Members that they would be wise not to make holiday plans before such-and-such a date in August or September, thereby allowing our noble friends in the House of Lords to make their holiday arrangements?

Mr. Carr: I must give myself a warning about this before I give it to anybody else. We should take note of the fact that our holidays this year look like being rather precious.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the Queen's


Speech the House was promised that legislation would be introduced in this Session to render void spurious guarantees and warranties, and when will time be given for that purpose?

Mr. Carr: I cannot make any statement about that at the moment, but I will take note of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said and look into the matter.

Mr. Crouch: May I remind my right hon. Friend that President Pompidou made mention this week of the Channel Tunnel? I wonder whether we may have similar mention in this House fairly soon.

Mr. Carr: It is easier to make mention of it than to debate it in this House with the business that we have in front of us.>

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Has the Leader of the House seen the two articles in the Evening News earlier this week revealing the scandalous situation with regard to the gazumping of the British taxpayer by the British Lion Film Corporation? In view of the excellent work the Prime Minister did in connection with this before his appointment as Prime Minister, will the Leader of the House ensure that the appropriate Minister makes a statement next week or that we have a debate, because what is going on is nothing more or less than crookery?

Mr. Carr: I have not had the advantage of reading these articles. Stimulated by the hon. Gentleman, I will do so, but it is not business for next week.

Mr. McMaster: It is more than two months since the political initiative was taken and the Northern Ireland Parliament was suspended. There are about 30 Bills of varying importance and complexity pending in respect of Northern Ireland. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to have this legislation introduced and properly debated in a democratic fashion, as was promised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister?

Mr. Carr: I said earlier that I hoped I might have something to say about Northern Ireland business in my next Business Statement.

Mr. William Hamilton: When is the right hon. Gentleman to make a state-

ment about the dropping of the Bill on museum and gallery charges?

Mr. Carr: I can only repeat what I have said before, that I am hoping to make a business statement before long announcing that we shall have time to proceed with it.

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
At the start I should like to inform the House of the result of the further investigations made into the incident at Kelly's Bar since the statement which my hon. Friend the Minister of State made to the House on Monday. All the indications are that the bomb exploded prematurely whilst those intending to use it for a bomb attack elsewhere were either inside the bar or were returning to their vehicle from the bar. The facts do not support the theory that the bomb was planted by Protestant extremists.
The action taken by the Army to restore order after the incident and the subsequent cross-fire between the communities was extremely well carried out by the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment. This locality has been quiet since the weekend. The action taken has shown the determination of the Government and the security forces to act firmly and effectively.
Since that incident there have been further terrorist actions in Belfast and Londonderry which suggest that the IRA is now desperately trying to provoke a Protestant reaction. The majority of the population of both communities are showing commendable restraint in all the circumstances. It must be said that they would be playing the terrorists' game if they allowed themselves to be provoked. But so long as they exercise restraint they are entitled to the fullest possible protection by the security forces, and I will see that they get it.
Equally, the Government and the security forces are entitled in their difficult task to the support and restraint of all responsible people. The initiative taken by the Government a few weeks ago


represents, in their view, the only chance of bringing communal strife to an end and affording a sound basis for the twin policy of eradicating terrorism and the promotion of a peaceful settlement. It is understandable that those who disagreed with the initiative should continue to criticise it, but it is neither reasonable nor responsible for the critics to claim that the legacy of years of communal mistrust and division should be put right in a few weeks.
Finally, I can assure the House and the whole community in Northern Ireland that the Government will be completely resolute in their determination to end terrorism through the use of the security forces, but they will not be panicked or pushed into over-reaction which could well destroy the chances of communal peace.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Secretary of State aware that we note his view that the bomb at Kelly's Bar was not planted by Protestant extremists and it is important that this should be publicised? But has he noticed that it is not only the two communities who believe that their opposites are violently working against them? On Tuesday the Irish Times reported that the murders of Catholics with no motive but sectarianism were increasing in Belfast. The Times today reports the deliberate shooting of Protestants to provoke a backlash. It is important that the facts of this matter should be publicised. My reports support the theory about the provocation of the backlash. Is it not time the Secretary of State concentrated the minds of all groups in Northern Ireland by announcing local government proportional representation elections? This would be a challenge to the IRA to fight as a political party and see the extent of its real support. Its continuation of bombing is a sign of weakness.
Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that in Northern Ireland few in the actual areas concerned, particularly Belfast, give a lead against sectarianism? On the other hand, the SDLP, for example, has spoken out against violence to the point, perhaps, of endangering the lives of its members. Positive leadership from the majority and the minority is required if moderation is to win, and in recent weeks this has been lacking. Is the Secretary

of State aware that we on this side support the aim of reconciliation and peace and repeat our commendation of the Army.
Finally, we welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity to make a statement today. We know that he is considering means of providing more time in this House through his right hon. Friend, and it matters that more time is made available for the discussion of Northern Ireland affairs in this House, bearing in mind that we have the sole democratic responsibility for affairs in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Whitelaw: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, I agree that it is most important in all these difficult cases to try to establish what were the facts, as opposed as to what inevitably become the rumours and, I fear, sometimes the myths. The facts I have stated are on the best possible evidence available to me from the security forces and the police.
On the second point, about concentrating the minds by local government elections on a proportional representation basis, I am considering all this. Naturally, I shall be very much in the hands of the House because there is legislation on this matter, which it is important to get through, inevitably on a rather tight timetable.
The question of time in the House is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord President. I am most anxious that I or one of my Ministers should make a statement to the House whenever the situation demands it. I shall always try to be here on Thursdays and make the necessary statements to the House. I hope that that will help the House in the consideration of the business, which I recognise at once the House has the responsibility for.

Captain Orr: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he said about business. We welcome periodic statements in the House. I regret any personal indignity that he suffered in my constituency this week. Had he told me he was going there, I might have arranged for his protection. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] On the serious question, is my right hon. Friend aware that the most dangerous ingredient in the Northern Ireland situation is the lack of confidence


by the majority in order being restored? My right hon. Friend himself appealed for the silent majority to come forward, but is he aware that the silent majority at two elections recently by large majority elected persons to represent them, and that it does not give much confidence to the silent majority if the views of those elected representatives are set aside? We all wish my right hon. Friend well in his task of bringing about peace and order. If he will tell us what the political initiative is, we will willingly help him.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend. I had, which did not seem to be very fully reported, a most interesting visit to my hon. Friend's constituency at Newry. I am sorry I did not advise him in advance, but I think he will understand the reasons for that. It is important for the House to appreciate some of the facts of my visit which were not publicised, because they are the important ones. The important fact was that I visited and met all the headmasters and headmistresses of all the schools of all denominations in Newry. I met them all together, and they discussed their problems together. They make sure that there is the greatest cooperation between them all. As an example of education conducted on a non-sectarian basis, although there are of course sectarian schools, it was extremely good. I wish a few more people had reported something which is of great importance in understanding the situation in Northern Ireland. I must congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on what I found there in this instance.
As for the other action, I will simply say that there were no more than, I think, to be fair to them, 35 to 40 ladies, and, frankly, I have been given a much rougher reception at political meetings in this country than I had in my hon. and gallant Friend's constituency.
I accept what my hon. and gallant Friend said on the question of confidence. I am most anxious to work with all those concerned in finding the right political future for Northern Ireland. If I were to set down exactly what I thought before discussing these matters with the people of Northern Ireland I should be regarded as imposing a solution and being extremely dictatorial, and I have no desire to do that. I am most anxious to work

with my hon. and gallant Friend, his hon. Friends and all those concerned in all parties to try to find a basis for the future.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Secretary of State aware that the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members understand and support what he is trying to achieve in Northern Ireland and that we believe that, whilst there is a complete right of criticism, those who are least justified in criticising him are those who have had responsibility for Northern Ireland in the past and have failed? Can he say when he is likely to be able to announce the appointment of the Commission? Since there are apparently to be local government elections, which could be the first stirring towards some form of partnership between the communities, but which are also fraught with great potential danger, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is very important that we consider the guidelines for those elections well in advance?

Mr. Whitelaw: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I am most anxious not to indulge in any recriminations of any sort about the past. As for his second point, I hope to announce the Advisory Commission next week. In reply to his third point, certainly I am anxious to discuss the guidelines. The problem I face with regard to local government elections and proportional representation is the time scale, which is very difficult. But I am prepared to lay all my problems in this regard before the House.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, while we fully realise the necessity for him to spend a great deal of each week in Northern Ireland, we are very anxious that he should never forget that it is not only the Ulster Members here who are gravely concerned about the matter? We all have a huge sympathy for the difficulty in which they find themselves. Whilst I entirely agree that we should avoid the danger of over-reacting when horrors take place, will my right hon. Friend recall those wise words said to Queen Elizabeth I by Sir Humphrey Gilbert:
I hold it as lawful in Christian policie to prevent a mischief betimes as to revenge it too late"?

Mr. Whitelaw: I absolutely accept what my hon. Friend says about my time


and my appearances in the House. My anxieties about the job I have and the situation which confronts me are probably as great as, and perhaps even greater than, those of most right hon. and hon. Members. If one bears my responsibility one has constant and desperate anxiety. I do not shrink from it, because that is what I took on. I accept what my hon. Friend says about preventing mischief in advance. In this situation I try to do the best that I believe to be right. I cannot guarantee anything to the House, because a situation such as confronts us in Northern Ireland is one which must be faced as extremely difficult and very dangerous.

Mr. Orme: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of us on this side will welcome the balanced statement that has has just made? But can he tell us how the examination of internment is going and when he expects to complete it? If internment could be ended fairly soon, with action taken in the courts against all those against whom the right hon. Gentleman feels it is necessary to take action but the rest released, could not negotiations take place with the whole community in Northern Ireland? That would in effect defuse the power of the IRA and allow normal political intercourse to take place within that country, which could help considerably with the right hon. Gentleman's present problems.

Mr. Whitelaw: It is very difficult for me to answer in detail the very complex problems and balance of problems that the hon. Gentleman puts before me on the subject of internment and political initiatives. I have released, on the best judgment available to me, more than 200 of those who were interned. In doing so in the current situation, I must be responsible for any risks involved, and I am. I take the best judgment I can in each case. The speed at which I can phase down internment, as was the policy in our initiative, must depend to a considerable extent on the level of violence which confronts me, and the risks therefore inherent in the situation. I must have regard to these matters. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I would also have to be assured of a complete response if I were to end internment in the way the hon. Gentleman has suggested,

because unless it was a complete response, with a real end of violence, it would make the situation very difficult.

Mr. Maginnis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies in this House are in great difficulty? Would it be possible for him to supply me with a brief so that I could explain to my constituents why before the initiative very little damage had been done in the county of Armagh and after the initiative very few areas are now clear of damage by the IRA?

Mr. Whitelaw: I fully appreciate all the difficulties which face my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, and I am most anxious to help them and work with them in any way I can. If my hon. Friend will give me details of the contention he makes about Armagh, I shall be very pleased to have them investigated by the security forces and see what can be done, but I should have the detailed facts to support the contention.

Mr. Peter Archer: I recognise that the Secretary of State is concerned to protect all groups in Northern Ireland, but does he recollect that on 23rd March the Home Secretary announced that there would be an inquiry into the allegations of illegalities against detainees mentioned in the Amnesty report, other than those inquired into by the Compton Inquiry? Is he in a position to say whether that investigation has taken place?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have also recently had various allegations made to me, and I am making investigations. I have given the strictest possible instructions that there can be no question of brutality in interrogations in the future.

Mr. Hastings: Does not my right hon. Friend think it lamentable that the Press and television of the world—for they are all there—seem to go out of their way to blow up any incident likely to exacerbate the situation but ignore or neglect any event likely to make for conciliation, such as my right hon. Friend's visit to the schools in Newry?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is never wise for politicians to criticise those who report the news. That is their job; they are responsible for deciding what is news and


what should be reported. Whilst I must accept at once that violence is news, and that so long as violence continues it will be reported—and I cannot get away from that—all I hope is that sometimes if there is good news it might also achieve some prominence in the reports.

Mr. Fitt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of the tragic events of last weekend took place in my constituency, where so many innocent people lost their lives? The right hon. Gentleman has said that he has information that it was an IRA bomb which was detonated outside Kelly's Bar. Can he give the House any indication of the reason why, within minutes of the explosion, there was a murderous crossfire from the Springmartin estate in which seven Catholic people were killed? There was also one young Protestant killed. I deeply deplore all those deaths, because they were all my constituents. Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication why there is such an enormous build-up of arms on the Unionist political divide? Mr. Craig, ably supported by some hon. Members of this House, has threatened that if he does not get his own way he will resort to the use of arms in Northern Ireland. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that internment is still the greatest single issue which divides the minority population in Northern Ireland from active participation in any form of activity with the Government? Will he take my word that if and when internment is ended—and we want to see it ended as soon as possible—I and my party—and I believe I speak on behalf of the great majority of the minority in the Northern Ireland—will actively co-operate in every way to make sure that the initiative is a success?

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand on the evidence available to me that it was some 40 minutes after the explosion at Kelly's Bar before shots were fired from the Protestant area. I hesitate to say this to the hon. Gentleman, in whose constituency the incident occurred, but he will probably confirm that it is almost impossible from the Springmartin estate to shoot directly at Kelly's Bar, because of the ground. I should like to tell him how much I regret in any circumstances any deaths among his constituents.

On the question of arms, it is almost silly to say it, but of course there are a great many arms in Northern Ireland or we should not have as much shooting as we have. I regret that there are so many arms, but they are arms on all sides.
As for the question of the ending of internment, I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am grateful to him for it. I hope, equally, that the evidence I have given of the phasing out might enable members of the community who have not felt able publicly to discuss matters with me to consider the possibility that soon it will be reasonable for them to do so, because I very much need to receive a response to some of the actions I have taken.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on both sides of the fence in Northern Ireland there has been a wide welcome for his lifting of the ban on parades? Is he also aware that Members of the prorogued Stormont are receiving good service from those in Northern Ireland responsible for handling the day-to-day grievances brought to Members by constituents? Is he further aware that this is appreciated by the people of Northern Ireland?
Would the right hon. Gentleman like to tell the House that, while hon. Members must be absolutely fair and give credit where credit is due, it is also their right to bring to his attention as forcibly as they can matters that are disturbing their constituents? Would he make it clear to the House today—I do not want to enter into the pros and cons of the tragedy of the weekend—that the military and the police went into Spring-martin and made arrests and that consequently men have appeared in court from the Protestant estate charged with having arms, while there were no arrests whatever in the Ballymurphy area although the Army confirmed that 400 shots were fired from Ballymurphy into the Springmartin estate? Does he not feel that this should also be put on the record?
With regard to internment, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that political leaders, including Mr. William Craig, have been stating publicly that internees are going back to subversive activity in Northern Ireland? Has he any evidence of this, or have the gentlemen who have


made these allegations laid before him any matters which he could investigate. It is vitally important that we should know what is happening to those who are released from internment.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information concerning the burning of Private Robert Harper, a member of the UDR, about whom it is reported in the Irish News—and for those hon. Members who do not read the Irish papers the Irish News is no Unionist paper; it is almost the official organ of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—that his hands were burned by cigarettes? Will he have a full investigation of this since this man has told the Press that he is not allowed to speak?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for what he has said about the administration and the service to hon. Members raising their constituents' problems. My other Ministers and I will do everything we can to help by personal contact and in answer to correspondence. I hope that as my Department becomes more fully established the service we give will improve. I am sure that the House will appreciate the immense task of setting it up in the first instance.
On the point about the searches in Springmartin and Ballymurphy, there were searches carried out in both estates. In some of the searches arms were found; in others they were not. I am still investigating the exact details, and will look into this.
On the third point about the internees who have been released—I know that the hon. Gentleman was never one of those in favour of internment in the first place—of those who have been released, more than 200, one was arrested last Saturday in connection with an armed robbery, and he is at present in custody.
On the hon. Gentleman's last point about Private Harper, I will look into this case and satisfy myself about the facts.

Mr. Edward Short: The right hon. Gentleman said that he had met the head teachers at Newry, and I am delighted that he did. Would he take the trouble to look up the record of a conference also held in the constituency of the hon.

and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) last year and organised by the Community Development Project at which I was present and in which I participated? If he reads this I think lie might feel that this kind of exercise would be worth repeating for people in other walks of life in the Province. It was a very useful contribution to intercommunal co-operation. Could I make an offer? If the right hon. Gentleman agrees to do this with anything involving the teaching profession, I would be only too delighted to offer my services and go there.

Mr. Whitelaw: I will certainly read what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I am most grateful to him for the suggestion, which I will certainly take up. Perhaps I may add one point to what I said earlier. The head of the technical college in Newry was also there, and he made the point, which is not perhaps appreciated in this House, that technical college education in Northern Ireland has been non-sectarian for a considerable time. That fact ought to be known by some of the critics.

Mr. Redmond: May I, as one whose forebears spent many years in this House fighting for Home Rule for Ireland, assure my right hon. Friend that he has the sympathy and prayers of the vast majority of people, not only in the House but in the country, who hope that he will succeed in what he is doing? Would he confirm that if he were to seek a fully military solution to the problems of the "no-go" areas he would cause such fearful bloodshed as would set back the cause of peace for many years to come?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his good wishes, and I am interested in the cause which his family used to espouse. As to what he said about the special case of the Bogside and Creggan, I am bound to agree with him. I should make what I believe to be the position perfectly clear. It would be possible at a cost, possibly a considerable cost, to go in. But, of course, going in is only the first part of the problem. Having gone in, one has to stay there, in terms of guerrilla warfare, for a considerable time. This would, quite apart from the casualties, set back the affairs of Northern Ireland for a considerable time.


Having said that, I must also say that I am not prepared in any way to accept the present situation, and I will certainly seek to end it as soon as I possibly can. I understand that there are persons who think that my attitude in this matter is one that lacks courage. I am bound to say that I greatly resent that accusation because I believe it is not a question of courage; it is simply a question of a commonsense approach to the whole future.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Duffy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members of good will recognise that the legacy of years of neglect in Northern Ireland cannot, as he says, be put right in a few weeks? Is he aware that we devoutly hope that he will continue to pursue his present policies? May I say how much I welcome what he has said about his refusal to turn the Bogside into another Warsaw Ghetto massacre? It cannot last. Of course this must be brought to an end, but only by pursuing policies of peace and reconciliation. Is he quite sure that these policies may not be discounted by Army and police methods of interrogation? Is he aware that, despite what he has said to my hon. Friends, these methods are still continuing? Is he aware that according to the Sunday Times of 7th May there is a wealth of evidence that there is still something radically wrong?

Mr. Whitelaw: I must at once make it clear that I am not prepared, before investigations, to accept allegations about the devoted work of the police and others who in the present circumstances serve me. I must have everything investigated before I respond to allegations of any kind. I have made my position about the future perfectly clear. As for the position in the difficult areas, I can only add that, while I have made my position perfectly clear, patience in these matters cannot be inexhaustible because it is, clearly, important that these areas be returned to democratic rule. It is important we should achieve that, and I fully accept the impatience of many people who are worried about the present situation.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I welcome very much this clear recognition that the aim of the

IRA is to encourage the population to engage in retribution? Is he further aware that I strongly support his plea for restraint by looking to my right hon. Friend for the protection of the people which he has promised us once more in his statement? Is he further aware that, leaving aside for the moment the question of the "no-go" areas, the real danger lies with the areas of disengagement and low-profile Army activity where over a large area of Northern Ireland the IRA is being enabled to regroup and re-form? Does he appreciate that this gives rise to a very grave threat for a period just a little way off, and that I warn him of this now?

Mr. Whitelaw: On my hon. Friend's first point, I am grateful for what he has said. I should make it clear that the security forces will do everything in their power to provide the protection which those who exercise restraint have the undoubted right to receive. No security force can guarantee any country complete and absolute protection at all times, but everything that can possibly be done to ensure this will be done. As to the question of disengagement, I make it clear to my hon. Friend and those like him who are worried on this score that I am not prepared to see areas established in Belfast, which I know is his concern, where IRA activity becomes prominent and seems to be establishing itself in a dominant position. I am simply not prepared to have that, and I will take the necessary steps to see that it does not occur.

Mr. Kilfedder: Would my right hon. Friend tell us who has accused him of lacking in courage, because I am not aware of it and I would certainly not approve of such a thing? Is lie aware that, although there is much to criticise about the restraints which the political initiative has placed upon the Army, the people in my constituency would wish to congratulate the paratroops on their swift, speedy and successful action in curtailing the ever-growing, ever-spreading influence and thuggery of the Irish Republican Army? Can he give us the information which I have asked for before about the torture and mutilation of soldiers, police and, I believe, civilians by the IRA, and can he give it to us now? Is he aware that, like him, what the people of Northern Ireland want is the truth,


and that we should put an end to the rumours being spread around? Can he say something to the people in my former constituency of Belfast, West, who have appealed to me to speak to him about the people who suffered from the bomb explosion yesterday in Roden Street and the three men and a woman who were shot and wounded as they left their factory? Can he do something to protect these decent people?

Mr. Whitelaw: No one in this House has accused me of lacking in courage. But I think I am entitled to say that I have been so accused in view of my postbag, which is fairly considerable, from a wide variety of people in different parts of the country. I must tell my hon. Friend that some of these letters accuse me of lacking in courage. But none of those who know me in this House has done so.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the paratroops and what they did, and I agree with him. I have already answered the point about curtailing IRA activities. I intend to seek to ensure that that happens. I will look very carefully indeed into cases where torture is alleged.
My hon. Friend also referred to his past constituents of West Belfast following the bomb incident and the shooting of persons coming from their work at Machie's factory. I hope that he will express my deep sympathy to those concerned. I must make the position clear. The Army maintains a permanent post in the Springfield Road to provide protection for Machie's factory. In addition, a mobile patrol is used exclusively for a 700-yard stretch of the Springfield Road. It is constantly on patrol but moves at irregular intervals. It is clear that the shooting took place when the patrol, as one might expect, was at the opposite end of its move. I have had representations from Machie's on this

matter. Immediately after the incident I asked my hon. Friend the Minister of State to go at once to the factory to see the management and ensure that the liaison about protection there was put right for the future, and I very much hope that it will be.

Mr. McMaster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a matter which has already been raised in questions about education is perhaps one of the fundamental causes of the trouble in Northern Ireland? Will he do what he can to end segregation of education and religious discrimination practised by certain schools in recruiting their teachers? Will he also ensure that he does not use words like "relentless pursuit of terrorists" when he was not prepared, in an area like Ballymurphy, to follow up terrorists who fired heavily into the Protestant area, arrest those responsible and try to recover the arms which had been used in this unprovoked attack upon the Protestant community?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is very important to appreciate that church schools not only in Northern Ireland but in this country, too, are a matter of freedom of conscience and freedom of choice. It is very important to accept that. In describing what happened at Newry and elsewhere, I was trying to emphasise that the more drawing together there is at various stages of education, the more children get together in games and other activities outside education, the very much better it is for all concerned.
I assure my hon. Friend that the Army did go into the Ballymurphy area, did dominate it, did make searches and did make clear that it was not prepared to tolerate the shooting from that area towards the Springmartin estate. The evidence of that is that the area has been quiet since the weekend and has been dominated by the security forces. It is clear that the terrorists were pursued, and they will continue to be pursued.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.23 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, Chat the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill represents a landmark in national insurance because it embodies the first annual up-rating within the new policy adopted by the Government and announced just before Christmas last. There used to be up-ratings at irregular intervals, generally of about two-years. There was pressure from both sides of this House to replace the two-year interval by an annual interval, and the pensioners themselves, through their organisations, have for many years campaigned to achieve just what the Government have now established—that is, an annual up-rating.
The annual up-rating will be a blessing to all the beneficiaries in the national insurance and supplementary benefit, war pensions and industrial injury schemes. It will give them reassurance. It will protect them sooner against price increases, and it will enable more regular attempts by Governments to increase the real buying power of benefits.
There is another advantage of which I must remind the House and for which I think the Government deserve the heartfelt thanks of hon. Members on both sides. There is a bonus arising from the move towards annual up-rating of both national insurance and supplementary benefits in that we shall end the wretched and widespread misunderstanding in the country that used to exist with the two-year review of national insurance and the annual review of supplementary benefits. It was a misunderstanding that defeated the explanations of successive Governments. Minister after Minister tried to explain, that what was being carried out was in the best interest of those concerned and was an attempt to give the supplementary benefit recipients an annual increase on account of the biennial review of pensions. But, no matter how often the Government of the day and hon. Members explained it, it never seemed to get through to the public, and

the newspapers regularly gave prominence to the complaints that used to arise. I hope that from now on that problem will be ended.
To illustrate the point I want to read extracts from two letters sent to me last September. The first is from Bristol, from a man writing on behalf of himself and his wife. It says:
We were promised by the Government£1 for single people and£1·60 for married couples. Naturally this is the Government's everlasting broken promise. My wife and I get 95p between us. We are being shamefully bamboozled.
The second letter comes from a single man in the North. It says:
I am very disappointed in it as they only allowed me 40p out of the£1. What a lousy do! With the increases in prices of things it won't even buy 20 Woodbines. Who gets the 60p that's left?
I hope that there will be no more such letters. [HON. MEMBERS: "What was the reply?"] I tried to explain, as my predecessors did, what had happened. From now on, however, all supplementary benefit increases and all national insurance increases will coincide on the same day each year.
Clause 1 coupled with Schedule 1 provides for increases in flat-rate benefits under the national insurance scheme. Corresponding increases in war pensions will be made by amendments to the Royal Warrant and the appropriate Orders in Council. Those in the supplementary benefits will be by regulations made under the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, and these will be subject to Affirmative Resolution of both Houses.
The main standard rate of benefit for a single person will be increased by 12½ per cent. from £6·00 to £6·75. The increases of benefit paid for a wife or an adult dependant and the standard pension for a married woman on her husband's insurance will increase from£3·70 to£4·15; thus, the benefit for a married couple increases from£9·70 to£10·90 a week. Pensioners who are over 80 will continue to receive the 25p age addition on top of these new pension rates.
The increases of benefit for dependent children are also being raised. These increases vary according to the type of benefit and the amount of any family allowances in payment. The present£1·85 paid with unemployment and sickness benefit for' the eldest child will go


up to £2·10 and the lower rates for other children will be increased so as to bring the total for each child, including family allowances, up to that amount. The children of widows and of invalidity and retirement pensioners attract a specially high rate, at present£2·95 including family allowances where these are payable—and this will go up to£3·30. The guardian's allowance and child's special allowance will also be increased from£2·95 to£3·30 a week.
The old persons' pension payable to those who were too old to enter the national insurance scheme in 1948, or to people who have reached age 80 and for some reason or other do not qualify for retirement pension, will also be increased by 12½ per cent. from £3·60 to £4·05 a week. For married women the present£2·20 will be increased to£2·50.
The lower rates of pension paid to women who are widowed and cease to be entitled to widow's allowance between the ages of 40 and 50 and other modified rates of pension for example, because of low contribution average—will also be proportionately increased. The widow's basic pension and contributory old-age pension payable to certain widows under the former contributory pension Acts will go up from£1·80 to£2·03 a week.
The war and industrial disablement pension for 100 per cent. assessment goes up from£10 to£11·20. The rates of attendance allowance and the exceptionally severe disablement allowance are also going up in proportion to the main increases. The standard war widow's pension will be increased from£7·80 to£8·80 and the industrial injuries widow's pension from£6·55 to£7·30. Injury benefit goes up from£8·75 to£9·50.
I have nearly finished the list of the benefits of which I am telling the House in detail. The rest are in the White Paper.
The supplementary benefits levels of requirements for the two main categories, the single householder and the married couple, will be increased by the same amounts and at the same time as the proposed standard rates of national insurance benefits. Other rates will be increased proportionately, though we shall be bringing forward the supplementary benefit changes separately. The House

should bear in mind that the long-term addition, at present 50p, or 75p where the claimant or a dependant is aged 80 or over, will be increased by 10p to 60p or 85p. The 10p increase in the longterm addition will not be taken into account in deciding the amount of the addition for special needs. The Supplementary Benefits Commission has decided to increase the additions for extra heating and special diets.
The effect of all this, in short, is that the poorest pensioners will be receiving not 75p for a single person and£1·20 for a married couple but, because of the increase in the long-term addition, at least 85p or£1·30.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the important point of heating allowances, will he elaborate on them a little more than he did when he first made his announcement? He then said that heating allowances would be increased by 20 per cent. I ask: 20 per cent. of what? How many more heating allowances does he estimate will be paid as a result of the Supplementary Benefits Commission ignoring the 10p increase in the long-term addition?

Sir K. Joseph: I should dearly like to enter into this matter, but it is more suitable for the regulations which will shortly be laid before the House. It is not part of the Bill. I gave the House a brief summary of the supplementary benefit changes, but it would be wrong to go into the subject raised by the right hon. Lady, not because I wish to avoid it, but because we shall shortly be having the opportunity to debate it.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick) rose——

Sir K. Joseph: I want to protect the time of the House, but I will give way.

Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman has explained the difficulty in previous years of explaining to pensioners who also receive supplementary benefit why they appear to be getting less than the full increase that has been allocated. He rightly takes some satisfaction in that that problem will no longer arise. How will he explain to pensioners that in the six months' waiting period between the Chancellor's announcement and its implementation about half of their increase will have gone in inflation? Will


he, before next year's up-rating, take urgent steps to find a way of paying the increase more quickly after it is announced?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has recognised that with 11 million benefits in payment, nearly 3 million of which involve supplementary benefit, the time taken to make the necessary changes in those 3 million cases, each one being personally changed on its merits, coupled with the time needed for legislation, must involve several months. The passage of time between the decision and the up-rating date is always taken into account by successive Governments—certainly by this Government—in arriving at the decision of the amount of the up-rating. The real benefit of these increases to those who receive them cannot, because of the point the hon. Gentleman made, be defined precisely at this moment.
In the six months since the last increase in September, prices have gone up, according to the general retail price index, by 2·8 per cent. and, according to the special index for pensioners, by 3·8 per cent. We still have seven months to go, because this is a 13-month period. I cannot tell what will happen between now and October, but I believe I am right in thinking, though one can only tell how right after next October, that the increase of 12½ per cent. will contain enough excess over the rise in prices between last September and this October to leave a significant real improvement in the buying power of pensioners and beneficiaries.
In saying "a significant real improvement" I am trying to choose my words carefully. Last September I called the real improvement in the benefit marginal. I think that this year we shall manage something a little better than marginal, although not yet a substantial real improvement. However, I believe it will be a significant improvement.
In September, for the first time, there is the comfort for all recipients that there will be another annual review in November, 1973, and successive Novembers thereafter. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), at the time the announcement was made, legitimately commented upon the proportion that the

single person's pension bears to the average industrial adult worker's wage. I acknowledge that after the Labour Government up-rating of 1965 that proportion peaked at just over 21 per cent. It fell during the two other up-ratings of the Labour Government, and after our first up-rating last year it was at 19·4 per cent. The up-rating in the Bill will, I hope, carry the percentage up again. However, I must point out quite objectively that the real comparison, bearing in mind that two-thirds of pensioners do not pay tax, is between the net buying power of the single pension and the net buying power of average industrial adult earnings. Though it is true that the comparison between pensions and average earnings peaked in 1965, the increases in taxation and national insurance contributions reduced the value of the real buying power of average earnings in later years. It is net buying power comparisons that really matter.
I make no party political point. I am acknowledging that there is a legitimate criterion raised by the right hon. Lady in comparing pensions and earnings. However, if we are to do this meaningfully we should try—I acknowledge that a third of all pensioners pay tax—to compare the net buying power of the two groups.
The question that the Government must answer is: why is the benefit increase not more than 75p for a single person and£1·20 for a married couple, and 85p and£1·30 respectively in the case of supplementary benefit?
Much emphasis has been put on the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced taxation across the board on all taxpayers by£1 a week in the Budget this year. There is a distinction between reducing taxation and allowing people to keep more of what they have earned or received, and increasing benefits which are only partly paid for by the contributions. I remind the House that, taking a 13-month period, the recipients of national insurance benefits and corresponding benefits received a£1 increase last September and next October will receive an increase of 75p, making a total increase of£1·75 for a single person over about the same period as the taxpayer has received a£1 weekly benefit.
I also remind the House that the Government have set their hand to three substantial forms of help for pensioners and all beneficiaries. The first is the annual up-rating, to which I have already referred. That change was pressed for and welcomed by both sides of the House.
The second is the benefit to a substantial number of pensioners which will come from the rent rebate system in the Housing Finance Bill. The third is the hope held out by the Chancellor in his Budget this year when he promised a Green Paper on the tax credit proposals.
These three forms of help add up to an accumulating promise of real benefit for pensioners which I hope the House will take into account.
The date when the benefits will be paid and the contributions will increase will be the week beginning 2nd October, which will be fixed in one of the commencement orders authorised in Schedule 1 of the Bill. The cost of the increase proposed in the Bill is£412 million in the first year, and the total cost of the improvements in the Bill and the related improvements outside the Bill is£479 million.
We are proposing to pay for the increased costs by methods which accord completely with the proposals in the White Paper "Strategy for Pensions". That strategy depends on two bases. The first is that a larger share of the cost will be borne by employers than by employees, and for that purpose there is proposed in the Bill an increase of lop a week in the flat-rate contribution paid by employers. The second main strand of the strategy concerning contributions is that the cost will be borne on an earnings-related basis.
In order to conform with that strategy, we are raising the bulk of the money to meet the cost of the improvements by two changes in graduated contributions. First, we are raising the ceiling of earnings for graduated contributions from£42 a week to£48. Secondly, we are raising the proportion of graduated contribution from 4·35 per cent. to 4·75 per cent. We are not changing the flat rate for the employee.
The result of this combination of changes is that persons earning£19 a

week or less as employed people will pay no increase in contribution. For an employed person earning£20 a week there will be an increase in contribution of 1p a week. At£30 the increase will be 5p, at£40 it will be 9p and at£48, where both the increases bite because of the increase in the ceiling and the increase in the percentage, it will be 39p a week.
We have avoided, for the first time as far as I know, in both up-ratings any increase in the contribution of the very low-paid employed person. We have not been able to establish the same desirable objective in connection with non-employed and self-employed people because they are subject to the flat rate, it not being possible at the moment to impose earnings-related contributions on them. For self-employed people there will be an 18p a week increase in flat-rate contribution, and for non-employed people the increase will be 13o. The Exchequer supplement rises in order to keep the taxpayers' contribution at about 18 per cent.
I turn to Clause 4 and Schedule 3, which provide for the increases in industrial injury benefits. I draw particular attention to Clause 4(3), which frees the Government to review the level of therapeutic and subsidiary earnings. These are, in effect, the earnings disregarded respectively for sickness and invalidity and industrial injury benefit, on the one hand, and for unemployment benefit, on the other. By Clause 4(3) and the related Schedule we propose, by regulations and a commencement order, to increase the present level of therapeutic and subsidiary earnings from 33p a day to 75p a day. We have been pressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House to do this, and I have also had an approach from the TUC about it. It is some years since the level was raised, and we are proposing to more than double it.
Clause 5 relates to the finality of decisions by the independent statutory authorities which decide claims and questions under the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries Acts and arises out of recent House of Lords judgments. The judgments dealt with the effect of the provisions in the legislation that the decisions of adjudicating authorities "shall be final" subject to specified rights of appeal and review, and the effect is that medical boards and tribunals dealing with


questions arising on a disablement benefit claim must accept the specific medical conditions which can be inferred as the basis of an insurance officer's decision in connection with the preceding industrial benefit claim.
It would be most unsatisfactory to bind the medical practitioners and consultants who compose the boards and tribunals to accept findings contrary to their medical judgment and which could lead to longterm awards, sometimes for life, based on original diagnoses which subsequently proved to be wrong.
I am also advised that the judgments may have implications for the main national insurance scheme and the family allowance scheme.
Clause 5 does no more than restore the position to what it was originally believed to be, and their Lordships foresaw that amending legislation might well be necessary following their judgments.
Clause 6 deals with minor amendments. Clause 7 is the Northern Ireland Clause. The Northern Ireland national insurance scheme is virtually identical with the Great Britain scheme, and up-ratings there usually follow closely what is done in this country. As the Northern Ireland Parliament is at present prorogued, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked us to include parallel provisions for that country in this Bill.
I turn to Clause 2—the attendance allowance Clause. We began payment of attendance allowance at the full rate—under the Bill it will be called the higher rate—last December. There are now 74,000 awards in payment. The first stage of the attendance allowance was limited to those who are so severely disabled that they need constant attendance and/or supervision by day and by night. The House at an early stage expressed its discontent with the limitation of the benefit.
The benefit is being up-rated from£4·80 a week tax free to£a week tax free and almost totally disregarded for supplementary benefit purposes. The Government said from the moment that they introduced the attendance allowance that they would, as soon as practical, extend it to those who had much

the same justification for help but not to quite the same extent as those involved in the original benefit. In Clause 2 and Schedule 4 is the promised extension, and I think I can claim that we could not possibly, in practical terms, have moved quicker than we have.
The basis of the extension is that a benefit at the two-thirds' rate—namely,£3·60—called the lower rate in the Bill, will go to those who need constant attention and/or supervision by day or night instead of by day and night.
I should like to pay a warm tribute to the devoted members of the Attendance Allowance Board—social workers, general practitioners, consultants and the noble Lord who is the Chairman—who, in spite of their very busy lives, have not spared themselves to bring into practical effect the first stage of the attendance allowance and are deeply committed to bringing in the extension at the earliest possible moment. I hope the House will allow me also to pay tribute to the civil servants in my Department and throughout the country who have put their hearts into bringing the new allowance into payment, both the original and the extension, as soon as possible.

Mr. John Mendelson: What will happen in those cases when, on the first application, the decision has been negative but one cannot say with absolute certainly that the only reason for rejection was that there was no need for attendance day and night in the judgment of the man making the decision? A number of hard cases have been submitted to the Secretary of State which do not fall into that category. Will there be the possibility of review of those cases?

Sir K. Joseph: I have obviously been into that point; it occurred to the Ministers and the advisers. However, I much regret to say that here we have a choice. We can either go back over the past, in which case the staff will be overloaded and we shall not be able to bring the extension into payment as early as we otherwise would, or we can go ahead as early as possible with the extension and invite people who feel that they are entitled to benefit from the extension to submit their applications again at the appropriate date. I have chosen the latter course.

Mr. Arthur Probert: The constant attendance allowance has caused much anxiety and bitter disappointment. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that far more attention is paid to the diagnosis of the local practitioner? Practitioners in my constituency are despairing of putting in applications. Far more weight should be given to the opinion of the local practitioner.

Sir K. Joseph: I hope that, in fairness, the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the allowance has also given great satisfaction to scores of thousands of people. The best thing I can do is to ask the hon. Gentleman to write to me stating the view of his general practitioner friends, and, if necessary. I will ask someone in my local office to go and talk to them so that I may know what is in their minds.
The extension will attract a very large number of claims. We believe that it may be as many as 500,000. We believe that as many as 250,000 awards may be made. We cannot take all those on board at once, and so we have had to face the invidious choice of organising a sequence of applications. I have had the benefit of the advice of the Attendance Allowance Board, and we have chosen to take working age first, then children, and then. in two phases, the elderly.
We are now thinking about putting in hand the preparations for the first stage of the claims. We shall invite claims from the first group—that is, the working age group—to be submitted at any time from 1st December, with attendant publicity well in advance. We intend to start payment to that first group at£3·60 tax free on 4th June, 1973. The three successive groups will be invited to claim at six-monthly intervals from 1st December this year. The date when claims are first taken on board for any group will be the date on which payment starts to be made for the previous group. We shall therefore be working in six-monthly bands, and at that rate of progress we shall be payiing for the second group of elderly people from 1st December, 1974. The timetable will be set out in the commencement orders.

Mrs. Castle: Do I take it that the first group will receive payment from 1st December this year?

Sir K. Joseph: No—June.

Mrs. Castle: So it starts from June and then operates at six-monthly intervals. Do I take it that the phasing will be completed by 1st December, 1974, and that at that stage the cost will be running at the£45 million which is referred to in the Bill?

Sir K. Joseph: That is very nearly right, but the cost at that stage will be running at £70 million, including the higher rate, which will continue. At the lower rate the figure is £45 million in a full year.

Mrs. Castle: We are told on the front page of the Bill that the extension of the attendance allowance will cost £11 million in 1973–74. The figure jumps to £45 million in 1974–75. Is that right?

Sir K. Joseph: To be precise, it will be 1975–76 when it reaches the full £45 million, because the benefits will not all be paid on 1st December, 1974. So it is better to take the full extended cost in 1975–76 of £45 million, to which must be added the cost of the higher rate, bringing the total to £70 million a year.
The Bill will complete an important stage, through the extension of the attendance allowance, in securing reasonable recognition of the needs of the severely disabled. The Bill provides for increases which should secure a real improvement in the buying power for all those who are on benefits. It ends the ups and downs and misunderstandings of supplementary benefits——

Mr. Michael Meacher: Before the Secretary of State reaches the end of what has been an unduly complacent speech, may I ask him to reconsider what he has said about the value of the pension increase in relation to the £1 tax cut to working households? He tried to make out that the two were comparable. Will he not acknowledge that the pension increase is purely counter-inflationary, representing a restoration of purchasing power, and is not comparable to the £1 to working households? By comparison the pensioners have received virtually nothing.

Sir K. Joseph: Those remarks are more appropriate to a speech than to an intervention. The hon. Gentleman is presuming that between last September and next October prices will rise 12½ per


cent. I do not believe that to be true. In their six years of office the Labour Government achieved a rate of growth in the buying power of the pension of only 2½ per cent. in real terms. I think it will be found that the 12½ per cent. which we are providing in October will produce a substantially greater improvement in real buying power than the annual average achievement of Labour.
I am not complacent. I am on record in many speeches in the House and outside as saying that we have much more to do, but I reckon that if party politics are brought in I have a reason to claim that our actions are relatively creditable.
Finally, this is a significant and widely welcomed innovation. Despite pressure which for many years pensioner interests have brought to bear on both Governments, this is the first of the annual up-ratings to which the Government as a policy have committed themselves.

4.57 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: In introducing the Bill the Secretary of State made great play of the annual review. I do not blame him; it was, after all, his bull point; and he was anxious to hurry over the details of some of the other benefit increases. But the Bill does not make legislative provision for the annual review; that, I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman said recently in the House, will be part of the legislation which he will introduce next year. However, I am not surprised at his diversionary tactics. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), I cannot share the right hon. Gentleman's complacency, and we on this side of the House do not accept this Bill on his estimate of it.
What we are dealing with this afternoon is a mini-Finance Bill. It is the poor man's Budget. The rich man's Budget was introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 21st March, and was presented with such panache——

Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Lady is starting her speech on a most distorting note. My right hon. Friend's Budget brought a tax reduction of£1 a week to every taxpayer in the land—equal for all.

Mrs. Castle: That remark might appropriately have been part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, if he had

thought of it. I assure him that we shall not evade this point.
The rich man's Budget was introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 21st March and was presented with such panache that one might have thought that the old-age pensioners, the disabled, the sick and the unemployed were about to have the bonanza of their lives under the most egalitarian Chancellor since the Levellers. But the slickness of the right hon. Gentleman's tongue deceived the ear. This afternoon we have a chance, of which we intend to take full advantage, of examining the poor man's Budget.
The right hon. Gentleman's explanation did not help us. He likes to rattle through statistics and throw percentages about, but any analysis of what they mean in human terms for these categories of people is put off until another day. The Secretary of State's manner is different from that of his right hon. Friend; it is more that of a mournfully affectionate beagle than of a terrier. It is all good will and gentle devotion to the cause of the poor. But the right hon. Gentleman's technique is the same as that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a very good technique, and I have been sitting here trying to learn from it for use on future occasions which may not be very far away. The technique is absolutely brilliant—announcing an amalgamation of measures some of which might take place today, although most of them do not, some tomorrow and the rest in two or three years' time. These future projections are presented as though they were today's actualities. The reference to the extension of the qualifying provisions for the attendance allowance is a perfect example.
It is curious to find in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum on the front of a Bill, after the cost of the extension of the attendance allowance provisions of£11 million in 1973–74, a little hieroglyphic which refers to a note which says:
Rising eventually to about£45 million per annum.
Even the financial experts of the Government have to enter this Walter Mitty world. In fact, expenditure on the new night and day attendance allowance during the next 12 months will be nil. Even the expenditure on the increase in the attendance allowance this year


will be only£1 million. We have now extracted from the right hon. Gentleman the information that this£45 million might be paid in 1975–76; so the Government cannot call it in aid as being in the relief of current poverty.
What we should be dealing with this afternoon is hardship and poverty here and now in Britain under our noses. Distant prospects do not butter today's bread. They do not even give it the thinnest smear of margarine. Let us look at today's actualities, starting with the most penny-pinched section of the community, the old-age pensioners.
The right hon. Gentleman has made great play of the introduction of the annual review. Of course we welcome it, but he must not call it into aid too much without stopping to consider the reasons for it. It is the product not of his Government's virtues but of their failures. The Government have made it a necessity. The inescapable fact is that, despite last year's record increase, as the right hon. Gentleman claimed, of 20 per cent. in the old-age pension, pensioners today are actually worse off in real terms than they were at the time of the Labour Government's increase in November, 1969. That is our starting point today, and it is indisputable.
Percentages do not feed people, clothe people or keep people warm. By the time the right hon. Gentleman had introduced his record 20 per cent. increase in September last year, the cost of living, as a result of his Government's policies, had risen by 16·5 per cent. So last year's increase in terms of food, fuel and clothing was not 20 per cent. but a mere 3½ per cent. to insulate old-age pensioners against the further price increases that were occurring every day.
What has happened since then? The cost of living had risen by another 3½ per cent. by March this year. So that record 20 per cent. had then already been totally eaten up. Only the other day the Under-Secretary of State, replying to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who asked what was the value now of the single pension increased to£6 in September last year, had to reply that it was worth only£5·87p. That was in April. What is it worth now?

Sir K. Joseph: Would not the right hon. Lady agree that precisely the same erosion of the pension increase occurred after all three of the Labour up-ratings, and that we have diminished the damage by introducing the annual instead of the biennial up-rating?

Mrs. Castle: Of course there is some erosion. The point is: what is the size of the pension increase at any point compared with the cost of living increase which the pension increase is designed to overtake? I have here statistics which I have obtained from the House of Commons Library, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the increase given by the Labour Government in the first two up-ratings was far superior in real terms.
Let me return to the present situation. Every month that passes old-age pensioners are sinking deeper into poverty. The Government know it; they have had to admit it again and again at Question Time in the House. In such a situation, how could the Government do less than promise an annual review? Is it conceivable that the right hon. Gentleman could have stood at the Dispatch Box and told old-age pensioners who are getting steadily worse off than they were in November, 1969, that they had to wait until November, 1973, for an up-rating? There would have been a public uproar if he had. The Government with their annual review are merely making a virtue of a political necessity.
It is against this background that we have to evaluate the Government's generosity to the old-age pensioners. First, it is intolerable that the Government took no action to give emergency help to old age pensioners last winter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) urged on him in a debate last November at the beginning of the winter when already the value of the last increase was being whittled away.
Secondly, it is intolerable that the Government refused to provide the kind of emergency winter payments which we provided when we came to office in October, 1964.

Sir K. Joseph: For whom?

Mrs. Castle: For the hardest hit of the old-age pensioners, and those are the people about whom we are talking when


we debate heating allowances or longterm additions.
It was feasible for the right hon. Gentleman to have done something for these people at the beginning of the winter months. He refused to increase the longterm addition, a device for helping the very poor between up-ratings, a provision which we introduced in 1966, and increased a second time. The right hon. Gentleman refused to introduce an automatic heating allowance, which goes to only 196,000 pensioners out of 2 million on supplementary benefit. The Government did nothing to increase the sum from the ludicrously inadequate figure at which it stands, and heaven knows how many deaths there were from hypothermia last winter as a result of that inhumanity. The other day I appeared on a television programme with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), and with a geriatric consultant who said he believed that many old people die of hypothermia, but the cause of death is described differently on the death certificate.
Instead of the old people being helped during the winter, we have had to wait for this Bill, under which the right hon. Gentleman claims credit for the fact that pensioners will now get a 12½ per cent. increase. I said "now", but, of course, they will not receive the increase until October, 1972. What does it amount to? It means an extra 75p for a single pensioner; yet by October of this year he will already be 20p worse off than he was in November, 1969. By the time winter arrives a single pensioner will have 55p a week extra in hand to see him through the 13 months until his next rise in November, 1973—the year of our entry into the EEC if the Government's proposals go through, and the year by which the Government promised they would effectively insulate those on fixed incomes against the cost of living increases that would be inevitable.
The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt say that I am exaggerating, and that he has increased the long-term addition. He has—by lop, barely enough to buy an old-age pensioner a large white loaf. What about the heating allowance, which the right hon. Gentleman refused to increase last winter? Here we know that he has been recklessly generous. The Supplementary Benefits Commission. he says, intends to increase special addi-

tions for extra heating by 20 per cent. where they are payable. I asked the right hon. Gentleman; 20 per cent. of what? It is not 20 per cent. of 75p. The right hon. Gentleman replied that it would be more appropriate to discuss the point at another time. I now ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what it is 20 per cent. of, and to how many people it will be payable.
The right hon. Gentleman says that he has instructed the Commission to ignore the increase in the long-term addition in calculating entitlement to heating allowance. I should hope so; otherwise even fewer pensioners will qualify for it and their 10p will have to go on fuel, which will mean that they will not even be able to get that extra loaf of bread.
Only the other day my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) asked the Under-Secretary of State whether he would introduce a special heating allowance of at least 50p for all pensioners on supplementary benefit. His reply was "No", on the ground that
The ordinary level of supplementary pension… provides for all normal heating expenses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1972; Vol. 836, c. 1106.]
Does it, indeed? Tell that to the old-age pensioners, thousands of whom have to go to bed in the afternoon because they cannot afford a fire.
What would my hon. Friend's proposal for an automatic heating allowance of 50p for every supplementary benefit pensioner cost? The answer is£1 million; yet the Government say that they cannot afford that sum. This is in a Budget of£2,000 million give-aways deliberately intended to be reflationary. But whose budgets are the Government trying to reflate—the budgets of old-age pensioners with their 75p, or 85p if they are on supplementary benefit? The right hon. Gentleman said that every wage earner in the land would get an extra£1 a week through tax relief.

Sir K. Joseph: If the right hon. Lady regards this as of such absolute priority and so imperative and capable of introduction at such low cost, why was it that in six years of office her Government did not introduce it?

Mrs. Castle: Because we were making greater provision than the right hon. Gentleman is making relative to the cost of living today.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: Mr. Robert Boscawen (Wells) rose——

Mrs. Castle: I am sorry, but I do not want to speak for too long.
I am saying that we are today operating in the context of a reflationary Budget of a kind that we never had during our period of office. The Government take credit for that, but they cannot at the same time take credit for refusing to provide£1 million in order to give an automatic heating allowance to old-age pensioners. We are in an exceptional situation. An exceptional Budget is going through the House, and we say that the share which the poor are to receive of that Budget is totally inadequate.
The right hon. Gentleman has made a lot of the tax reliefs being provided by the Budget. Those with incomes of more than£10,000 a year will benefit to the tune of£3 million; yet the Government cannot find an extra£1 million for heating allowances for old-age pensioners. People living on investment incomes will benefit to the tune of not£3 million but£300 million, and in that situation we say that 75p is an insult to pensioners.
Only the other day I received a letter from a woman who said that two or three years ago she became disabled with a spinal injury and she was now living on the same amount of money as she would have when she retired. She wrote to ask how it was that children in welfare homes had had their pocket money raised to 60p a week. She said that she did not begrudge them that sum, but she added
surely the sense of value is all wrong, expecting the elderly to live on a mere pittance of an extra 75p.
Time and again I have been challenged about what we would have done. My reply to the right hon. Gentleman is that, faced with such a Budget opportunity as this, we should have had a different order of priorities. First and foremost, we should have had different priorities in timing. We should not have waited until October to bring substantial help to pensioners.
Let me for a moment consider the Government's order of priorities in benefits. Budget day was 21st March. To applause and laughter from his side of the House the Chancellor said that estate duty relief costing£64 million this year and£125 million next year would take effect in relation to deaths occurring "after this day". The pensioner has to stay alive until October to get an increase in his pension. Free depreciation on plant and machinery will take effect "as from tomorrow", said the Chancellor on that day. For tax relief on interest—naturally, of course, the interest paid by wealthy surtax payers—the operative date would be 6th April. The date of the share option scheme would, he said, be 6th April, and the cut in income tax through increased personal allowances would be 3rd May, coinciding, remarkably, with certain electoral activities.

Mr. Kaufman: They still lost 1,000 seats.

Mrs. Castle: Yes, because in that catalogue of timing the date for the pensioners was, and still remains, October, 1972, and the extension of the attendance allowance will not come into force until June, 1973.
Had we been in office we would have had very different priorities of expenditure. Hon. Gentlemen opposite need not be complacent, and my hon. Friends need not be too defensive, over what we did for pensioners because in 1965 we introduced the biggest real increase in the old-age pension, and the right hon. Gentleman is compelled to admit it because he knows that the facts make his admission inescapable.
In 1965 we gave an increase after 22 months in office of 18½ per cent., when the cost of living had increased during those 22 months by 5·8 per cent. Last year the Conservatives gave an increase of 20 per cent. after 22 months in which the cost of living had gone up by 16·5 per cent. That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's claim that every Government find the value of the pension beginning to decline from the moment an increase is granted to the time of the next up-rating.
It is important to reflect on what happened during that interval, between up-ratings, when we were in power. We made an emergency grant in payment in


the winter of 1964 and an improvement in the long-term addition between up-ratings. We introduced a national superannuation scheme which by the end of this century—if we had won the election and carried forward that Measure on to the Statute Book—would have lifted 87 per cent. of the retired out of poverty. Compare that with the present Government's miserable proposed State reserve scheme under which by the year 2020, when the whole population will have been integrated into the scheme, at least 3 million people will be supplementing their pensions by public assistance.
I remind hon. Members that we introduced the attendance allowance and invalidity benefit, not by way of an election manifesto but in our national superannuation legislation. We lifted the pension to a better ratio with average earnings; to 21 per cent. in 1967 or the highest ratio since 1948.
I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about the ratio declining after 1969, but it declined for the simple reason that we were struggling with acute balance of payments difficulties. It is because of that struggle that hon. Gentlemen opposite no longer face such difficulties. Indeed, the Prime Minister boasted at a CBI annual dinner the other evening:
This means that we are better able than for many years to withstand any temporary strain on the balance of payments which the expansion of the economy may involve.

Sir K. Joseph: I trust that the right hon. Lady will complete her picture by saying what happened in 1967 and 1969. The Labour Government in one of those years did not increase the pension even enough to pay for rising prices since the previous increase, and in the other year they managed to do only about as well as, and certainly no better than, we did last year, but much less well than we are doing this year.

Mrs. Castle: I accept that from 1969 the ratio declined, but the same cannot be said of the 1967 up-rating. It was from the time of our struggles and difficulties with the balance of payments, devaluation and the post-devaluation period that our record became less good than any of us would have liked. But the real comparison is what we did when we had the sort of opportunity that the

Government now have, and the answer lies in our success in 1965.
It is because, as the Prime Minister said, of the strong balance of payments position today that this year's expansionary Budget has been introduced. But it is expansionary for everyone except those who are expected to live on another 75p or maybe 85p a week. One cannot do much expanding on that. This is the year above all years when we could have afforded a crash programme to alleviate the misery of the old and lonely poor.
On the face of it, the figure of expenditure in the Bill looks generous,£412 million in 1972–73, but of this sum about£395 million falls on the National Insurance Fund. This means that not the Government but the contributors, including the employees, are financing the increase. They are paying for this extension of the right hon. Gentleman's modern version of social security tax, or increased graduated pensions in return for flat-rate benefits.
The Government's contribution through the Exchequer is a mere£68 million, and I say advisedly to the right hon. Gentleman that as the Government had so much money to give away they should have used some of it to expand the Exchequer contribution and so enable us to do better than only 75p. If the Government had expanded the Exchequer contribution to the National Insurance Fund from 18 per cent. to, say, 25 per cent., that would have cost£160 million, and perhaps£220 million in 1973–74. On that basis we could have given the pensioner another£1 a week above the 75p, at the price of only a minute increase in contributions.
The aim of our policy must be to lift the pension into a fairer ratio to wage increases. This was the aim of the Private Member's Bill introduced the other day by my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell), in connection with which he said that we should commit ourselves to phase in a statutory obligation to lift pensions over the years to 33 per cent. of average earnings by 1976.
I make no judgment of the figures in that Bill, but there is no doubt that my hon. Friend was right in principle. One way to achieve that principle would be


the plan, which we are now studying, of grafting existing pensioners, or those retiring in, say, the next 20 years, on to our radical, dynamised, inflation-proof national superannuation scheme by giving them credits and entitlements within that scheme and by giving them the protection and enjoyments which the scheme gives to the average wage earner. We shall get no such plan from the present Government, who are dedicated to keeping millions of pensioners indefinitely pauperised.
That is the difference between hon. Gentlemen opposite and my hon. Friends. But we shall not vote against this Measure. We are grateful for any improvement from this Government, and we want to encourage them to do better still.
I give notice to hon. Gentlemen opposite and the nation that we believe that the Conservatives' strategy for dealing with poverty and unemployment does not measure up to the needs of a modern society and that when we are returned to power at the next General Election we shall produce a very different one.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: It will do the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) no good to receive a compliment from me. Nevertheless, as one who has admired her as the woman who has probably reached the greatest political power in British history, I thought it was unfortunate that she should carry forward into the debate on this subject today what I might call the combative style which I thought was rather more suited to some of her earlier appointments. However, I listened with great interest as she compared my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to a beagle and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a terrier. Reminding myself that I am addressing a right hon. Lady. I shall not take the canine simile any further.
The right hon. Lady is quite wrong when she accuses my right hon. and hon. Friends of complacency in presenting the Bill. I make it clear to my right hon. Friend at the outset that, while I very much welcome the contents of the Bill, it Seems still to fall short of the aspira-

tions which I have and, I am sure, he has for retired people and other beneficiaries. So, whilst there is no complacency, it is a little churlish not to welcome the Bill, particularly as a first fruit of the Government's decision to review pensions and other benefits annually.
It is a sobering thought that had the Government merely paid lip service to the idea of an annual review—that is what their predecessors have done—we should not be debating today a Bill which will bring at least some comfort to many of those on whose behalf the Opposition are so loud in their espousal. It was absolutely right to decide to go over to an annual review, not only because inflation has been rampant in recent years—and let us concede that under both Governments this has been so; I have never felt——

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Concede it properly.

Mr. McCrindle: I concede that under the present Government inflation has been increasing far too fast for my liking and that of my hon. Friends. But, having conceded that, it is expecting too much from me to fail to remind the Opposition that inflation was hardly totally absent during the six years they were in government. Therefore, it was right to change to an annual review. It was right because the weak in our midst—the people we are speaking about—are particularly vulnerable when inflation is as rampant as it has been over the past few years. Elderly people and those receiving social security benefits have looked at the development of the annual increase for wage earners and wondered why they alone were being left for two years before any redress was made to their situation. We, too whom I may loosely refer as the younger generation, sometimes overlook the fact that two years in the life of an elderly person is a very long time. Therefore, I welcome very much the annual review evidenced in the Bill. For the first time in 20 years, two increases have been only a year apart. Surely everyone in the House will welcome that.
I regret having to follow the right hon. Lady in the tone of my following remarks,' but the fact is that in cash terms the


benefit will be one-third up, by October this year, since the present Government came to office.
The annual review goes further to reassure beneficiaries than anything any Government have done in the past. I believe we shall indeed attempt in the future not just to increase the pension by such an amount as would keep pace with inflation but that, progressively, we shall move to a position in which we can actively increase the standard of living of elderly people.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this could have been done now and that the extra£1 which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) spoke about in her speech could have been made available if the Government had seen fit to give the£200 million-odd net from the Exchequer to pensioners rather than giving£300 million gratis to the few thousand best-off taxpayers, who get it in accordance with what the Chancellor said in his Budget Statement, at col. 1387 of the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. McCrindle: I want to come to what the hon. Gentleman has said, not in that intervention but in an earlier one during my right hon. Friend's speech, because it will surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I have some sympathy with some of the things he said then. Perhaps he will allow me to develop my argument as I wish.
As from 1972, pensions and supplementary benefits are to be increased at the same time. It is very difficult to overlook the tremendous effect that this will have. All of us in our constituencies must have had the complaint that, pensions ostensibly having risen by so much. people on supplementary benefits were receiving only half of them at the time the increases were announced. So those on supplementary benefit will now get the full amount of the pension increase and that should be welcomed in all corners of the House.
There is room for debate on the amount of increase proposed in the Bill. All I can say about that is that 'twas ever thus. But I remind the House that this is the second increase since June, 1970. Of course prices have risen. The latest figures which I have—noted before my

right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture announced figures up to April—are from June, 1970, to February of this year. Prices rose during that period by 14 per cent., both on the ordinary index and on the special index for pensioners. If we enact this legislation, by October, 1972, pensions will have risen by almost 33 per cent. in cash terms. No matter what increases in prices take place between now and then, the standard of living of those in receipt of pensions and other benefits will have been improved, no matter how marginally, during the period of the present Government.
It is significant to note that, as a Conservative Government, in two and a quarter years we shall have put up pensions by£1·75 per week, compared with an increase of£1·62½ during the six years of the Labour Government. In addition, we have started on the process—which the Bill takes further forward—of giving extra help to those in particularly urgent need. In particular, I welcome very much the extension to the attendance allowance, moving it over to a situation of paying the benefit where attendance is required by night or by day. All of us must have had many anomalies and hard cases thrown up by the previous operation of the attendance allowance and there have been many borderline cases. It is estimated that as a result of this change about a quarter of a million more people will qualify for it. No matter on which side we sit in the House, that is something which we surely must welcome.
On the subject of paying for these improvements, I contend that the method chosen by the Government is a very fair distribution of the burden. A man receiving£18 a week or less will pay nothing extra. This is the same as the last time pensions were increased. We cannot be said to be neglecting the interests of the least well off section of the earning community. The man on the new£48 maximum will have an increase of 39p per week. But I remind the House that he is the man who has received—by implication this has been criticised by the Opposition—an extra£1 a week as a result of the extra tax reliefs of my right hon. Friend's Budget. After paying the additional 39p he is still left with a substantial part of that£1.
That is in conformity with the policy of the Conservative Government to give some incentive to the wage earner. I believe that we are paying for the substantially increased benefits while at the same time not giving a disincentive to the man in active employment. These steps are a move towards a fully earnings-related basis which is part of the programme of the Government outlined in the White Paper "Strategy for Pensions" Therefore, I warmly welcome the Bill.
I want to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) about whether it is right to announce these increases in the Budget and then pay them about six months later. Although I accept that an annual review of pensions and benefits cannot, and should not, be separated from the budgeting of overall national resources, I would prefer that a decision as to the amount by which pensions and benefits can rise be taken in the summer and that payment should begin in the autumn.
If that were to be done, after the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day had decided whether his Budget should give away or take back in April, it might be that circumstances would change, that demand had to be reflated, or the reverse. I believe that seeing all those things in perspective, as the Chancellor would, rather better in the summer, it would be preferable in future that increases in pensions and benefits should be decided then and paid in the autumn.
Here is the rub. My right hon. Friend has said, not for the first time, that we under-estimate the administrative difficulty of implementing pension increases quickly. I have said to my right hon. Friend before, and repeat it today, that I just cannot accept that what can apparently he done in other European countries cannot be done in Britain.
I ask my right hon. Friend earnestly to look into the operation of the administration again to see whether we cannot speed up the process. For the first time this year my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequner has found it possible to pay the tax reductions on the first weekend in May as against the first weekend in July. I do not believe that what has proved possible administratively for that Government Department should be impossible in this Department.
Lastly, I wonder whether my hon. Friend in replying to the debate will answer what may seem to older Members a very elementary question. Why is it necessary to have a Bill to implement these increased benefits? I wonder whether there is not a simpler way in which, although we would not stifle debate, we would achieve our objectives rather more quickly. Will my hon. Friend look into that possibility?
So I want a summer decision and an autumn implementation. I want, if possible, no legislation and faster administration. With those two fairly mild qualifications, I welcome the Bill and wish it a speedy passage.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: It would be churlish for us on this side not to welcome the Bill so far as it goes. I agree with some of the points that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle) made, in particular as to the delay in implementation of the Bill's main proposals. We had this same problem in 1965. The then Minister came under very great pressure in Parliamentary Labour Party meetings about the delay in implementing the increase which was announced in the spring but was not brought into effect until the October.
There were then, and there are now, administrative difficulties. We tend to assume that there is just one standard rate of pension. The then Minister said that at that point more than 200 different rates of pension were being paid for one reason or another, and that all the books had to be brought in and sent out again and all the rates individually assessed. It is not an easy exercise.
There should be some retrospective payment. If there is this delay, it would be more tolerable to old-age pensioners if they knew that when the autumn came, when the six months were up, they would get a lump sum in the form of a back payment. That is particularly apt at this time when the Government, because of the highest May unemployment figures since the 1930s, are urging a massive reflation of the economy, not as a virtue but as a political necessity.
The unemployment figures have reached such a state that the Government are pouring thousands of millions of pounds back into the economy and the


very Chancellor who introduced his White Paper in October or November, 1970, saying "We shall cut public expenditure" is now encouraging everybody to spend as much as possible immediately.
The very people who would be guaranteed to spend every penny they got would be the old-age pensioners. If we want to encourage expenditure, if we want to initiate a consumer boom, the very best place to channel the resources is into the pockets of the more poverty-stricken section of the community. There is not an hon. Member who in the last few weeks and months—indeed, throughout the year—has not received in his post letters from old-age pensioners detailing their problem and their poverty and asking why they must wait until October or November for the miserable 75p they will get then, because they know their own problems better than anybody here. We all see the evidence before us when we go to our constituencies but we cannot visualise what it is like to live on£7 or£8 or£9 a week, which is the very most that many of these people are getting. Some of them get less.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) that the Secretary of State is a very slick operator. He is the Government's public relations officer No. 1. He can sell us anything, or at least he has a damned good try at selling us anything. Anyone listening to the Secretary of State today would think that it was a harvest festival, that everybody would get something. The right hon. Gentleman challenged my right hon. Friend with the statement that everybody would get£1 back in tax, but that will be taken back in rent in the next few months from most of them. Therefore, they are not gaining.
The debates on the Budget, show that my right hon. Friend's assessment was correct. The Budget was designed mainly to help those on high incomes and investment, unearned incomes. The Bill is virtually distributing the crumbs from the rich man's table. Of course people are grateful for crumbs when they have not had a meal for a month or two, but that is no good reason why we should not criticise the Bill.
I am as much of a partisan politician as any hon. Member. Nevertheless in many ways I find it a distasteful exercise

to make a party political football of the plight of our old people. We all tend in these debates to play the numbers game and to produce statistics to show that one side did better than the other at a certain period. This is a futile exercise unless it is related to the context in which a Government were acting. The context in which the Labour Government were acting was a very different context from that in which the present Government are acting. Our top priority was to solve the problem of the balance of payments. Perhaps with hindsight this might be regarded as wrong. We were faced with an£800 million deficit and successive Chancellors bent all their endeavours to solving the problem.
The great tragedy for our old people and for the community as a whole was that when we got the balance of payments right we were kicked out of office because of the sacrifices we asked our people to make in solving it. The Government are now reaping the rewards. We could not have had these Bills and this generosity if it had not been for the Labour Government turning the£800 million deficit into about a£600 million surplus, although the Conservatives tried to convince the people in the course of the 1970 General Election that the turnabout in the balance of payments was phoney.
I shall deal with one or two of the Government's claims. Each political party tends to be more extravagant with its promises in opposition than with its performance when in government. This is the fault of the party politicians and it is probably one of the reasons why they are in such disrepute. The Government claim three things in their list of achievements. They say that the last increase in the basic pension was the biggest in money terms since the war. The second is that they have given pensions to the over-80s, again for the first time since the introduction of the National Insurance Scheme. Their third claim is that for the first time there is to be an annual review of pensions.
Those are legitimate claims which any Government would be proud to make, but I hope the Government do not exaggerate the effects of them. Their first claim that this is the biggest increase in money terms is a grossly misleading boast. In real terms and in percentage


terms it is untrue. In 1946 the basic pension was increased by the Labour Government from 10s. to 26s., a rise of 160 per cent. Since then no government have ever remotely approached that kind of increase. The Tory Opposition criticised it—I think it was Sir John Anderson who said we had acted too hastily and ought not to have done it. He had some justification for saying that from his point of view because his then leader, Winston Churchill, had said that we were a bankrupt nation after the war. We did it contrary to the advice of Beveridge. It is true that the increase was eroded by inflation in succeeding years. But the£1 a week that the Government boast about was a 20 per cent. increase on the basic pension as against the 160 per cent. increase of the Labour Government.
There is no denying the brutal fact that since the war the rate of increase in the standard of living of the old people has fallen steadily and remorselessly behind that of the rest of the community. It is easy to blame the "blackmailing" trade unions, if I may use the Chancellor's phrase. It seems to be the Government's favourite ploy these days to blame the position of the old and those on fixed incomes upon the militancy and treachery of the trade unions. But the fault of that militancy lies in the Chancellor's attitude and the two or three grossly unfair and socially unjust Budgets introduced by him in the last two years.
The Government's second claim that they have introduced pensions for the over-80s for the first time is a minimal achievement. Will the Under-Secretary tell us the total net cost of the proposal? Certainly whatever it is, in the nature of things it is a sum which must be reducing. The number of pensioners concerned must be insignificant. Most of the over-80s were already receiving supplementary benefit or, presumably, they should have been if they were entitled to it. It is a measure of the fragility of the Government's case that they continue to claim this as a major contribution to the solution of the problems of old age.
The Government's third claim that they have introduced the idea of annual reviews is sound in principle. Again, with the advantage of hindsight one can say

that it should have been done by the previous Government. It does not automatically follow that this innovation, welcome though it might be, will of itself lead to a lightening of the burdens of poverty and deprivation which large numbers of pensioners still undoubtedly endure. If the annual increase is to be no more than 75p, the amount they will get this autumn, they will fall further and further behind the rest of the community who will receive more than 75p a year increase in earnings. The gulf between retirement and other pensioners and the working community will widen.
The future is no less foreboding in the light of the Government's White Paper
"Strategy for Pensions". This is not the subject of debate today but it is very relevant to discuss the problem in the context in the Government's long-term policy for pensions. Earnings-related contributions are based on a sound principle. The idea was adopted by the last Government in their ambitious, inspiring and expensive scheme. No good pension scheme can be other than expensive and this is one of the great mistakes made by some of our manual workers. The miners in particular are suffering from it at the moment. They were very badly advised when it was said that they could get a good pension but did not have to pay a good contribution. It cannot be done. If people want good pensions they must be prepared to pay adequate contributions.
The Government's scheme leans far too heavily on occupational pension schemes. Of course they are highly desirable, but there are millions of workers, particularly manual workers, who have occupational pension schemes which are grossly inadequate. The top executives can look after themselves but there are millions of working. people who will still have to depend in large measure on the basic State pension. This is my main criticism of the Government's White Paper "Strategy for Pensions".
I want the Government to commit themselves to a guaranteed increase of not less than 10 per cent. a year on the basic pension in their annual review, plus any additional rise dependent upon the annual rate of increase of industrial productivity, so that the pensioner at the very least keeps pace with the increasing wealth of the rest of the community.


There has been reference to the Exchequer contribution. There is nothing sacrosanct about an 18 per cent. Exchequer contribution. No Government should be tied to that figure. On the contrary, it would be more equitable if the Exchequer assumed a much greater proportion, because there is no doubt that financing the old will be a bigger and bigger financial burden for a variety of reasons. How the burden is shared is a matter of debate but I hope it is our view on this side that a bigger proportion must be borne by the Exchequer, with a more progressive taxation system than we have now.
In so far as occupational schemes play a bigger part in financing old age, I think the trade unions would be very well advised to concentrate at least as much of their negotiating strength on that aspect of their conditions as on their claims for immediate wage increases. There might be scope here for the Government, the CBI and the TUC to get together to see whether the unions can be persuaded to limit their demands for immediate wage increases on condition that the pensions at the end of the day will be materially better than they are now. That would serve all purposes. The unions would be assuring their older members of a lessening of the gulf between earnings on retirement and retirement pensions. It would lessen the fear we all have of continuing inflation. It would serve the Government's purpose and the CBI's purpose, and I think it would serve the workers' purpose and help to make a major contribution to dealing with the whole question of inflation.
I should like to say something about the heating allowance, which is a very important point. Some people might think it is a minor point, but the Minister will have seen the recent report of Age Concern on this matter which revealed that one out of every three old people who were interviewed suffered from lack of adequate heating, which is one of their prime concerns. I think that the maximum heating allowance now is 75p a week. That will not buy a bag of coal. The need is much greater the further north the old person lives. I speak as a Member for a Scottish constituency. There might be a case for examining

whether it is more desirable to increase the allowance for those living further north. Living in the Highlands is very different from living in the south-east of England. This is an extremely important problem which I hope the Minister will take note of.
We are discussing today, as we discuss every day in the House, a question of priorities and choices. Resources are always limited and we must choose how much we spend on this, that and the other. This occurred last Friday when we discussed nursery education, and today it is pensions. It happens every day. Very painful political decisions must be taken by Governments. All too often the House is completely ignorant of the basic facts on which any Government decide their priorities. But in this case many of the basic facts are on our own doorstep. We can see them and we hear about them. People write to us about them, and we know that the most poverty-stricken section of our community, the most underprivileged section, consists of our old people.
I end on this note, against ourselves as Members of Parliament. In the past day or two there has been published the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Bill. When I compare how we are looking after ourselves with the way in which we are treating the people we are talking about in this debate, I find it intolerable. The Prime Minister's pension, noncontributory, is to be increased from£4,000 a year to£7,500 a year. Mr. Speaker's pension—I make no personal reference to you, Mr. Speaker, but to the office—is to be£6,500 a year, and that, too, is non-contributory. We backbenchers must contribute 5 per cent. to our pensions, but the Prime Minister and the Speaker do not contribute. I do not know why. Leaving that matter aside, why should we treat ourselves more generously than we treat 7½ million or 8 million old people? Simply to say that there are only 630 Members of Parliament but7½million to 8 million old folk, and therefore the problem is that much bigger, is not good enough. I do not believe that if the will were there to give the pensioners an adequate pension the means could not be found. It is because the will is not there that we do not find the means.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Tom King: The whole House will accept the spirit in which the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) dealt seriously in the main part of his speech with the Bill and the matters that it raises. He struck an echoing chord in my mind when he spoke about the rôle union negotiators could play and the importance for the future of recognising the value of improved pension benefits to union members, which could give many advantages in many ways.
It is distressing that the so-called fringe benefits, the ones that do not represent immediate cash, tend to be overlooked and to be discarded in negotiations through a lack of understanding of the benefits they could bring. Part of the object of those engaged in negotiations is to achieve better wages, better earnings, so that people have the opportunity to save some of their income for the future, but they often fail to realise that by saving through improved pension provisions they can obtain the help of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and benefit in so doing. We must wish that these considerations could occupy a higher place in the future in union negotiations, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's plea.
I also agree very much with the hon. Gentleman's refusal to play the numbers game. I thought it was something of an attack on his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who spent most of her speech playing the numbers game. There have been a few canine comparisons. The right hon. Lady, whom I encountered in her previous capacity, always reminds me, if I may say so in the politest way, of an energetic Jack Russell. Perhaps we should avoid the feminine of that, which I suppose might be a "Jane Russell", which, of course, has other associations.

Mrs. Castle: I would not quarrel about that.

Mr. King: The right hon. Lady is nothing if not energetic, and she deployed her arguments with her usual skill, but strictly in the context of the numbers game. That is not the message the pensioners are waiting to hear.
I very much welcome the improvements that have been made. It is significant,

and obviously advantageous, that the members of the Opposition Front Bench team has been changed. Therefore, they avoid the problem of explaining why they failed to make the improvements themselves. They can always claim that they are about to bring to the matter a completely fresh approach of their own. The annual review is undoubtedly welcome.

Mrs. Castle: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like to accept a little correction of what he has just said. I am afraid my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), who is usually with me on these matters, is ill. That is why he is not here.

Mr. King: I entirely accept what the right hon. Lady says. I was referring to the role she is playing, and the fact that there are certain advantages in her occupying the position instead of certain of her predecessors, who might have had to accept some responsibility for the inactivity and lack of effective improvements by the previous Government.
There cannot be a Member who has not had pensioners coming to him at his surgery over the problem that used to occur on an increase in pension with the consequent adjustment of supplementary benefit. The annual review, which will remove that anomaly, is to be welcomed.
I would like to raise two particular points on the proposals regarding the attendance allowance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that after discussion and the benefit of the advice of the Attendance Allowance Board it had been decided to proceed with certain categories in order. I am a little concerned about why the order has been decided as it has. I notice that the oldest shall be last. Those born before 1898 will be the last to receive the benefit so they will presumably be more than 74 before they are reviewed. They will be perhaps 75 or 76. Those over 76 will be the last to receive the benefit.
Why has the order been chosen in that way, particularly as it is based on the advice of the board? Equal periods have been chosen for evaluating the claims of the different categories. Are the categories equally divided? My right hon. Friend gave 500,000 as his estimate of the possible total that could be reached


of the numbers eligible under the modified attendance allowance. What percentage is represented in the estimates of his Department by these various categories? How many does he estimate are children, how many are of working age and how many are retired? I note that my right hon. Friend has divided equally the periods into six-month periods for determining each category. Are these groups of equal size? May we be given a breakdown?
I should like us to raise our sights for pensions. This is not a party political point. We in this country still have far too low an idea of what is an adequate pension. West Germany is working on a proposal that retirement pensions will reach 75 per cent. of the average working wage. The average working wage in this country is now£32 a week, which means on the German proposal, a retirement pension of£24 a week. A much closer relationship of the retirement pension to the average working wage will, I believe, become increasingly desired and required in the coming years.
The possibility of earlier retirement is also much under consideration. The commonly accepted philosophy that people in retirement have automatically consideraby lower expenses and must increasingly accept a lower level of income is also a concept that will be increasingly challenged. We shall be expected to ensure a far higher retirement pension—certainly one out of proportion to the football kicked around the Chamber today.
The right hon. Lady mentioned entry into the European Economic Community. One of the factors which all hon. Members will agree about is that there will tend to be a levelling-up process, an equalisation, a harmonisation in a whole range of different activities whereby all countries in the EEC will seek to achieve the level of the best—whether it be in number of holidays, average working wage or pension provision. We shall certainly see that other member countries make a far more generous national pension provision, and as a result we shall be under great pressure to follow suit. We shall be asked why our provision is not so generous.
It is against this background that I agree with the point made by the hon.

Member for Fife, West that one does not get pensions which are adequate without being prepared to pay for them. That concept is right and we must accept it. All proposals raise problems. All Governments are understandably anxious to avoid loading exceptional burdens on present and coming generations. But we must recognise that in future a higher standard than what is accepted at present will be expected, and we must prepare for it now.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Alec Jones: I would not wish to follow the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) into the attractions he sees lying in Europe and into the accusation he made of the inactivity of the last Government were it not for the fact that I was one of the hon. Members who served on the Committee, with the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike), considering the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill of the last Government. Many of the major provisions and increases proposed in this Bill stem from the original concepts in the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill, particularly the attendance allowance and invalidity allowance concepts.
I start from the premise that in so far as all social security benefits are designed for those in need, any increase is to be welcomed. On that basis, I welcome in the main the contents of this Bill. But I do not think that is the question we should be arguing. The true question is not whether the Bill contains welcome and much-needed increases but whether the increases are adequate. Do they meet the needs of the old people, the sick, the unemployed and the disabled? Do they meet those needs not only at the date at which the increases are first paid but throughout the period of time in which they operate?
We should examine those questions against the background of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget Statement. The Chancellor boasted:
In total, the reductions in taxation which I have announced today amount to some£1,200 million in 1972–73. Together with the other reductions which have been made since this Government came to office, the burden of taxation in this coming year will have been reduced by over£3,000 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1972; Vol. 833, c. 1390]


Against the background of that large amount of money to spare, and bearing in mind that 82 per cent. of the increases in the Bill are borne by increased contributions which are nothing at all to do with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I do not believe that the increases in the Bill can be described as over generous or even adequate to meet the needs which exist today.
I want to look first at the plight of our old-age pensioner comrades. If we take it as an essential aim that we should seek above all to insulate the pensioner against poverty—a great deal of lip service is paid to that idea—I do not think we are going far enough in the right direction. The National Federation of Old-Age Pensions Associations—few will contest that it knows more about old-age pensioners and their problems than anyone else—has made a demand for a single old-age pension of£10 and a married couple's pension of£16. That is a long way from where we are going now, but I do not think such a target is unreasonable if we mean what we say—that old-age pensioners should have an income adequate to live on not only with some dignity but with a modicum of comfort.
If we compare that ideal with the proposals in the Bill—increases of 75p for the single old-age pensioner and£1·20 for the married couple, effective not today but from October—it is fair to say that both in amount and in timing we are behaving in a miserly fashion. The Minister of Agriculture this week announced that food prices had risen by 17·2 per cent. since the General Election. The Daily Mirror last Saturday published its "Shopping Clock" which I know is well read in Government circles. It said:
A real shocker—that's this week's food bill. It sent the hands of the Mirror Shopping Clock swinging forward by 12·p. The increase is the biggest registered by the clock in five months.
That is the sort of problem the pensioners have to meet. These are the people who have to meet the ever-rising prices. It is adding insult to injury to tell them that they even have to wait for their small increases in pension until October while at the same time we make income tax concessions effective from May and other concessions even earlier. After all, we must all surely accept that old-age

pensioners, by virtue of their age and their poverty, are the people least able to wait.
I turn now to the question of the annual review. I welcome it as desirable in itself but it could be said to have been forced on the Government by virtue of inflation. It is right that it should have been done, and essential. I do not think that the Secretary of State will think me churlish, however, when I say that I do not believe it to be a victory for any Government. The fact that the present Government have accepted the annual review is a tribute to the pressure put both upon them and the previous Government by back benchers on both sides of the House. I know that I am somewhat suspicious of this Government in particular and Governments in general in connection with old-age pensioners, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us why it was decided not to write a guarantee of the annual review into the Bill.

Sir K. Joseph: We have already announced that we will do it in the "Strategy for pensions" Bill.

Mr. Jones: I accept that it has been decided to write the guarantee into another Bill, but I ask because old-age pensioners have said to me "Are we to have it reviewed every year?" I have replied "Yes. The Government firmly intend that it will be." I have then been asked "Will it be in the Bill?" I have replied "Yes" because I was sure that it would be in this Bill and I think it desirable, in the first National Insurance Bill following the Government's decision to accept an annual review that the guarantee should be written in.
I welcome today's reduction in the unemployment figures, but we must remember that the present Leader of the House, when he was Secretary of State for Employment, indicated that we were likely to have 500,000 unemployed for the next two years. That means that we are likely to have over that period high and long-lasting unemployment. I ask the Secretary of State for Social Services particularly to look at the problem of the long-term unemployed. The present law dealing with long-term unemployment means that after 312 days unemployment benefit ceases and the unemployed person becomes dependent either upon means-tested supplementary benefit or, if it is a


man, for the first time in his life, after 20 or 30 or 40 years of work, upon his wife's earnings. That was not the case under the 1948 Act, Section 62 of which extended the period of entitlement to unemployment benefit as long as the need—the unemployment—lasted, as long as the man was willing to work. The willingness to work was tested by a local tribunal. I think we should revert to that position, bearing in mind that we are likely to have long-lasting unemployment for a considerable period of time.
I welcome the extension of the attendance allowance to those requiring a great deal of attention by day or night. This will make it much easier for many of my constituents, whose applications have been rejected and who have found the greatest difficulty in understanding the reason for such rejection.
I come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater on the implementation of this extension in stages—the working age, the children and the old people. I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman took the advice of the Attendance Allowance Board on this but I think we should consult further about it. It seems to me that whatever the views of the board may be, the arrangement that the oldest people should be kept waiting to the last to receive the benefit is harsh and cruel. I can think of some of the oldest people in my constituency who need the attendance allowance and who qualify for it by virtue of their age and illness but are likely not to be with us long enough to reap the benefit of the extension. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to look again at this and see whether we cannot devise some means, perhaps by a change in the order proposed, to ensure that the elderly disabled are particularly helped by the extension of the attendance allowance.
I want to say something about the disregard in the assessment of supplementary benefit claims. In 1966 it was decided that the disregard should be 20s. of other income, which was to be ignored in calculating entitlement to supplementary benefit. In 1969 I asked a parliamentary Question about the amount that would be necessary to increase the disregard to give it the same value that it had in 1966. It was clear in 1969 that the disregard had begun to lose its value, and I am sure that as a result of inflation, certainly in the last two years. the 1966 disregard

of 20s. needs overhaul today. I ask the Government again whether they consider that the disregard is necessary in 1972. Why is it not updated regularly as are the other benefits provided in the Bill?
I have sought to raise certain issues to which I hope to return if I am fortunate enough to serve on the Committee stage of the Bill. I believe that these issues can make our social security provisions more compassionate. I hope that the Government will enter the Committee stage of the Bill prepared to listen to the arguments and, if necessary, to accept certain Amendments for the sake of our fellow countrymen who often are worse off than ourselves.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones). I know how sincerely he feels about these matters. I am also particularly glad that he is not prepared to play the game of pension shuttlecock. I have always been convinced that pensioners do not like to be treated as a shuttlecock between the parties in these matters. It is an undignified rôle. It does not help them in the least if the parties score party points on what they did when they were in office. How easy it is when one is not in office to make promises for putting pensions up without talking about the contributions that have to be made.
First, though I welcome the extension of the attendance allowance to the day or night principle. It is disappointing that it will take so long to be fully implemented. Before I have to explain this to my constituents, including the people who will not get the extended attendance allowance for two years or so, I would like to hear the detailed administrative reasons why it takes so long. Is it the shortage of doctors on the Attendance Allowance Board, the shortage of medical opinion or the shortage of administrative people involved? I hope that the Minister will give as much detail as possible on this matter.
Secondly, the Attendance Allowance Board must be building up a mass of information and knowledge about the people who are applying to it for allowances. We have not had a full review from the board, and I wonder whether we shall get one. It would be of immense


use to all of us if we could hear something of the information it is gaining not only about the people who get the allowance but about those who have to be turned away at the door.
My third point is that many people are turned away because they do not qualify. They are the sad cases one frequently hears about in one's mail. I hope that their position is drawn to the attention of, for instance, the Directors of Social Services. A great deal of the disability in this country can be helped but it is not being helped through lack of communication. It may be possible to pick up a few more cases through the Attendance Allowance Board in this way even if they cannot be given an allowance. At least the director of social service will have had notice of them and will be able to see whether through community home-held or any other ways they can be helped.
The Bill will be followed by increases in war service disability pensions. I never understood why we could not raise those pensions in the same way as we can raise old-age pensions through the Bill. It is done automatically, as I understand it, and it never seems to be debated in this House.
On each occasion that we have debated a National Insurance Bill I have brought up the same case, and I intend to bring it up again. Again we have missed an opportunity to put right the great injustice to the widows of Servicemen who married their husbands after retirement and who still get no pension.
I can quote the case of a widow of a lieutenant-colonel of the First World War. After that war he left the Service and retired. He joined up again in the Second World War, not under the same regular commission but under an emergency commission. He served through the Second World War and subsequently died. Although she was married to him during service in a world war, she still cannot draw any pension. That is a matter about which we should all be deeply ashamed. There are not many such cases, but we should do something about the remaining ones. There is a tremendous amount of moth-eaten red tape wrapped around those cases which I would like to see my hon. Friends cutting through quickly.
It was represented that my right hon. Friend was complacent about the gap between average earnings and pensions, particularly the pension for a single person. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend is the least bit complacent. It is completely out of character. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) that we have to think much harder about closing this gap. If we are to harmonise with the countries in Europe we shall have to do it. Let us bring it about steadily. We may not be able to do it all at once, but let us start bringing it up steadily towards a better proportion of the average earnings of the day.
Finally, I add my welcome to the Bill, which primarily is the result of bringing in the annual increase, which is a very great advance. My right hon. Friend deserves all the credit for introducing the Bill at this early stage in this Parliament.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I find myself in complete agreement with everything that the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) said, particularly on the plight of certain widows of Servicemen who are still denied a pension, and the need to speed up administrative arrangements for processing applications and planning allowances. I shall have a little more to say on that subject later in my remarks.
I begin by referring to what all hon. Members have mentioned, the issue of pensions and inflation. One of the reasons why the Bill is probably more widely welcomed than any previous National Insurance Bill is that everybody recognises that for the time being we shall have to live with inflation which is well in excess of 5 per cent. a year. Those of us who are at work can perhaps use our bargaining power to ensure that we keep pace with inflation, or even improve our living standards in an inflationary time by investing money in things like property, which are supposed to be inflation-proof. These advantages are denied to old-age pensioners.
We have to address our minds in this debate to the subject of whether it will be sufficient in future merely to regard the annual review of pensions as a means of compensating pensioners for inflation in the previous 12 months. If pensions


are constantly to be brought up to a certain level in relation to average earnings, allowed to deteriorate over the next 12 months and then jacked up at the next annual review, we shall be playing fast and loose with the old people. They will have nothing to be happy about if all that we are assured of in this Bill is that the annual review will be on that basis. I hope that it will be agreed that priority should be given in the annual review to giving a rise in pensions sufficient to compensate for the effects of the fall in value of the pension since the last increase.
I suggest—indeed, this may have been considered by the Government—that in the PESC exercise—the public expenditure five-year survey—consideration ought to be given to putting in a target each year for an increase in the value of old-age pensions in addition to any increases which may be necessary to compensate for the fall in the value of pensions since the previous increase. Governments do not like targets because if, for any reason beyond their control, they cannot reach them they are open to perhaps ill-informed criticism. But surely all hon. Members agree that we should try to give a constantly rising standard of living to old people.
This is not a matter which ought to be left to budgetary policy each year. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle) put forward a useful suggestion for considering an increase in the summer and paying it in the autumn. However, I take issue with him on one point. He implied that an assessment of the pension increase which ought to be arrived at in the summer of each year would depend on the Government's view of the demand management of the economy. In a mixed economy it is obviously essential to have demand management. However, pensions are too important a subject to be considered as just another part of total Government spending. Obviously, they must be considered in that way, but I suggest they should also be considered in other ways. If we are to have demand management policies which work, they should affect those who are working or those who, if not working, are of working age and perhaps living on accumulated capital. There is no question that we need a wealth tax to iron out many of the inequities in

the tax system, but it is wrong that a demand management policy should apply to the consideration of old-age pensioners year by year.
Surely no Government could in future say: "It is necessary for us to damp down demand in the domestic economy. Therefore, at the annual pension review we will not give the increase that pensioners ought to be getting to give them a real increase in their standard of living and we shall not give them an increase which will make up for the fall in the value of the pension since the last increase." Whatever the state of demand in the national economy, surely the minimum that any Government of any political complexion should aim to do in the annual pension increase is to compensate for the fall in the value of the pension since the last increase and the last review. If we can assure old people that in future, come what may, whatever the state of the national economy, pensions will at least keep pace with inflation, even though there cannot always be that real increase which all hon. Members would wish to see. we shall be doing them a great service.
The need for an annual review which is inflation-proof is shown by the large numbers of pensioners who have to go to the Supplementary Benefits Commission to achieve a minimal standard of living. Surely our first aim should be a pension for old-age pensioners which ensures that they do not need to go to the Supplementary Benefits Commission, except in very exceptional circumstances. This would not necessarily mean the Government paying out any more money, because what is paid out in supplementary benefits now could be paid out in future as pension increases. There would therefore be a saving on supplementary benefits. However, there is no doubt that, despite what both this and the last Government are doing and have done, the plight of old-age pensioners grows steadily worse, not only because of inflation but because of some human factors which we cannot quantify in money terms.
We live in a mobile society. Therefore, more old-age pensioners are living alone away from their relatives and friends—certainly away from their closest relatives who have a duty to look after them—and are increasingly unable to cope


with the demand and pace of modern living. One would think that every old-age pensioner needed a television set not as a luxury but as an absolute necessity, and, furthermore, a telephone as many of them find it difficult to get out, particularly in inclement weather. It may be that eventually we shall have to consider some form of subsidy to provide old people with telephones so that they may keep in touch with relatives who have moved away beyond walking distance, which is all that most old people are capable of doing.
Old-age pensioners are totally dependent on the State. That means that basically they are totally dependent on both parties in this House. Action to give a real improvement in old-age pensions is a right which pensioners have. But, more important, those of us of working age have a duty to those people who have given their lives in service to and work for the community, usually in working conditions very much worse than appertain to the working population today, to do our best for them.
There is another reason for welcoming the annual review. I, like many hon. Members who have fought by-elections in the last few years, particularly in the time of the Labour Government, have found a good deal of misunderstanding among old-age pensioners about the cut which took place in their supplementary benefits every time there was an increase in pensions. Although one could give the explanation, one always felt that it was unsatisfactory from the old people's point of view, and that really one was making excuses although giving the proper reason. Therefore, we should welcome the annual review because it will get rid of what seems, on the face of it, to be an anomaly. In future, if pensions and supplementary benefits are considered together we shall get over this difficulty and old people will understand that pensions and supplementary benefits go up, not that one goes up and the other is cut because the first has gone up.
Finally, I wish to refer to the attendance allowance. Obviously all hon. Members will welcome the extension of the scheme partly because so many people who thought they would be eligible were excluded from the original scheme as a result of the rigorously defined condition

which then applied. This is not a matter of criticism. When we start what is, in effect, a new social service we must have rigorous conditions, but gradually there should be a process of relaxing those conditions to bring in more people, particularly as the administrative machinery becomes capable of coping with a larger number of claims. Nevertheless, as has been pointed out, there were a lot of hard cases for constant attendance allowances in the original scheme. The hard cases with which I am particularly concerned will now, fortunately, be met by the generous extension of the scheme to those who need constant attendance by day or by night, not both by clay and by night.
However, we are tackling only the tip of the iceberg regarding the attendance allowance. The needs of the disabled are known, but only vaguely. We do not know the total numbers. There are no central administrative records. Many people who might be eligible for the attendance allowance, disability benefit, and so on, may not have put in for it or may have been put off by the bureaucratic process through which it is necessary to go. Therefore, I hope that, as local authorities begin their surveys for the purposes of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act by knocking on doors and finding out the needs and requirements of the disabled, the Government—whether this Government or the next Labour Government—will do more to increase the amount of money paid out and to extend the general principle of inclusion in the scheme for the attendance allowance. We have disability benefits, but they are not always open to every section of the population.
The way in which it treats its old people and its disabled, those who can no longer help themselves and are dependent on the State. is a mark of a civilised community. Although no hon. Member will regard the Bill as going far enough, it is a welcome step forward. On both sides, we hope that it will be a beacon to future Governments, Labour or Conservative, to build on the firm foundations now being laid.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West


(Mr. Deakins), but I hope he will forgive me if I do not pursue his line of thought. I hope that the House will forgive me if I introduce a somewhat more partisan note than has been noticeable in the more recent speeches, though not nearly as partisan as the opening remarks of the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) who, I am sorry to see, is not now in her place.
I listened with a growing lack of conviction to the right hon. Lady's speech and then, at the end, I realised that she did not intend to be taken seriously, promising as she did—I tried to note it down—a guaranteed, dynamised, inflation-proof benefit, or something to that effect. It was no doubt what the Labour Party, so we were told, would produce as the outcome of the Crossman plan—a guaranteed, dynamised, inflation-proof benefit. My mind went back to the good old days of the white heat of the technological revolution, and I could not help but wonder whether that pension was to be paid out of the product of that revolution, about which we heard a lot at one time but about which we hear very little now, since that sort of talk is thoroughly unrealistic, just as the right hon. Lady's was about the benefits which her party promises for the future.
I recalled the scheme which, we were told, would produce those benefits. It was largely unintelligible. The present White Paper, on the other hand, offers a much better hope for the people of this country.
I do not like the idea that we in this House by our decisions set the standard of living of 7 million to 8 million people. I prefer that sort of decision to be taken out of the Government's hands. People's pensions should be related to their job. Properly funded occupational pension schemes, diversified and professionally managed, offer a much better guarantee and a much greater likelihood of something approaching the right hon. Lady's dream than the sort of scheme which she and her hon. Friends produced when they were in power.
I am tired of the rather proprietorial air which the Opposition adopt towards pensions and their smug approach to their own record, the implication always being that we on this side do not care while they are the ones

who care and do things. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] I heard the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) say: "What do you know about pensions?" It is the same old theme—"What do you know about trade unions? What do you know about work?". I am sick of their proprietorial air, so I thought that it would not waste the time of the House if we spent a few moments comparing the records of the two parties.
It is interesting to note that during the 13 years of Conservative Government from 1951 to 1964, pensions rose in real terms by 4 per cent. per year, and in the six years of Labour rule they rose by an average of 2½per cent. I noted that the right hon. Lady boasted about 1965 but slid gently over 1967 and 1969, because she knew that the two later reviews did nothing to improve the pensioner's lot She knew that by the time her party went out of office pensioners were worse off than they were in 1965, in spite of the 1965 splurge, which is the only part of their record that the Opposition really like to talk about.
I take pride in the fact that a Conservative Government gave the largest ever cash increase in pensions last year, and the largest percentage increase in 1958. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have checked that. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) make his claim. In fact the largest percentage increase came in 1958.
In our previous period of government we proved that we care about the pensioner and we share the anxiety which the Opposition express about promoting the well-being of pensioners. We can point to greater success than they ever showed. Whatever the right hon. Lady may say about cost of living increases, the present Government can point to the simple fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle) said, that in less than two and a quarter years there will have been an addition of£1·75 to the single person's pension, whereas in Labour's six years the increase was£1.62. We have three and three-quarter years to go and already, in cash terms, we are ahead of them. I am proud that we are, and I hope that the Government will continue in their good work.

Mr. Meacher: Mr. Meacher rose——

Mr. Parkinson: I would rather not give way; as there is little time. The hon. Gentleman has many opportunities, and he frequently uses them to give misleading statistics. I do not intend to present him with another opportunity now.
The Government have shown already in the increases which they have given that they intend to look after pensioners. In doing that we are not doing anything new; we are merely maintaining a record of which I am proud.
I end on a slightly more cavilling note. I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) about the attendance allowance provisions, and I am especially unhappy to note that the oldest section of potential beneficiaries will be the last to have their position reviewed. To emphasise the point I shall cite an extreme example which came to my notice at my advice bureau a fortnight ago.
The parents of a 93-year-old lady who has lived with them for 20 years came to see me—[Laughter.] People live long in Enfield; it is a very healthy place. I meant to say "the children", of course. They pointed out that their mother was 93 now and would be in the last category to be reviewed. If she is found to be a deserving case—and I have no doubt that under the extended provisions she will be—the earliest possible date for benefit in her case will be December, 1974. Not to put too fine a point on it, the review in her case will probably be an academic exercise, because it is highly unlikely that she will be here to qualify for the allowance by the time the review is completed.
There is a case for making an exception for the very elderly, the over-80s or over-85s. There is a strong case for bringing forward the review of their position. We should not defer it till the very last. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will consider this matter. The number of people involved is not enormous. We ought to make a special exception for the over-85s, and I hope that when the Bill goes into Committee an Amendment will be made to bring that about.
This is a good Bill and greatly to be welcomed. No one will be satisfied with what it does for pensions but it is a step in the right direction and, coupled

with the annual review, it is further testimony of the Conservative Party's concern for the plight of the elderly.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I apologise for not being present to hear the two opening speeches from the Front Benches, which I very much wanted to hear, but as a member of a Select Committee I was tied up from 4 o'clock till 6 o'clock.
I wish to put a word in the ear of the Secretary of State himself because, on the occasion of my presentation of a Ten-Minute Bill designed to gear the State retirement pension to national average earnings—it is still on the Order Paper—the right hon. Gentleman left the Chamber as I began to speak. Several of my hon. Friends thought he was acting with discourtesy, but I noted that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State did me the honour of listening to my speech.
I quite understand that a Minister of the right hon. Gentleman's standing in the Government is a busy man and, having answered Questions that day, he may well not have been aware, at least at that juncture, that my Ten-Minute Bill had anything to do with him. However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look very seriously at the philosophy expounded in that Bill. It is commonly understood that there are two different philosophies. There is the Labour Party's philosophy towards the State retirement pension which is mirrored in the TUC's economic review. There is also the philosophy and attitude of the Secretary of State and his colleagues towards the promotion of occupational pension schemes in preference to any organic promotion of State retirement pensions.
I ask the Secretary of State to study the proposals in the Bill which I put forward and to consider the possibility of going some way towards what I have in mind. The retirement pension has been set out in graph form in relation to national average earnings, and this, in working-class terms at any rate, is a much better yardstick than a cost of living index. One was produced about two years ago which was supposed to be used as a tool in arriving at the pattern of spending of old people in


general, because it is not possible to apply a weighted system in the more general cost of living index, but I understand that it is falling into disuse as it has been found well nigh impossible to measure household costs in terms of rents, mortgages in some instances, and so on. If we want to measure the State retirement pension in real terms, the only tool we have is the document relating to national average earnings, currently about £31 or£32 a week, which ranges over a wide section of industry. If we thought in terms of an entitlement of old people to half this figure in a graduated way annually, we would go some way towards solving the problem.
The hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson) talked about a "splurge" under the Labour Government in 1965. I do not wish to engage in an auction on this matter. I do not think that the average old-age pensioner was impressed with the previous Labour Government, which I kept on nagging on this question, or is impressed with the present Government. I understand the philosophy and approach to this matter. The Secretary of State said he wanted to give benefits to people who needed them; he did not want to give blanket benefits to people who might not need them. I wish him joy in his endeavour. But that does not apply to old-age pensioners, since a considerable number of them—and I think that a figure has been put on it—because of pride or ignorance or for other reasons will not apply for supplementary benefits to which they would be entitled if they disclosed their circumstances.
A pension of£6 a week for a single person is not satisfactory, especially if people have no other means or very few other means. I was a railway worker several years ago. Railway workers receive a small railway pension. They may have a gratuity and a pension for which they have paid in. When inflation overtakes them, their pride will not allow them to seek the means to help them to catch up with it. There is a generation of people who were denied the opportunity of contributing towards handsome occupational pension schemes.
That may not happen in future because, partly as a result of what happened concerning national superannuation under the Labour Government and partly as a

result of what has happened under the Conservative Government, the nation generally is much more conscious about the question of national provision for old-age. It is conscious that it owes a debt to many people of previous generations who did not have the opportunity of contributing to pension schemes. The House brought people over the age of 80 into entitlement on the ground that they could not insure during their working lives. Similarly many people could not take up satisfactory occupational pension schemes. They will be assisted in future because when the Labour Party is in power again it will be possible to implement our national superannuation ideas instead of having to grapple with economic difficulties.
My great criticism of the Labour Government was that they did not give this matter priority after putting the balance of payments right. Had we done so, we would have won the General Election because it would have made Labour Party supporters vote. Our defeat was attributable to Labour supporters not voting rather than to a substantial swing to the Conservative Party.
There is no point in boasting about an annual review system unless substantial improvements are made along the lines I have suggested. We cannot leave the matter to the National Federation of Old-age Pensions Associations for discussion at its annual conference. I notice that in the struggle to keep up with the cost of living and inflation the association has put another£2 on its original demands. Therefore, the TUC's economic review has been made out of date in rapid time.
The Government cannot run away from this matter. The hon. Member for Enfield, West referred to the "white heat of the technological revolution". With a dynamic national economic annual growth rate or the TUC's proposed annual growth rate which its economic advisers said was possible if we pulled together, we could build up the resources necessary to deal with this question. I ask the Secretary of State to look at this matter carefully because if we get the economy moving—and we all want to see that happen—the first beneficiary must be the previous generation of old people.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. J. R. Kinsey: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a wonderful record over less than two years. This Bill adds to it. I invite the Opposition to look at his record occasionally, to write all the things the Conservative Government have done on a piece of paper and to keep it in front of them. If they had the Government's record they would be trumpeting round the country saying how wonderful what they were doing for the people in need was. I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend, with his humane attitude to these matters, holds his present office.
An hon. Member opposite referred to a Standing Committee during the time of the last Government which had possibly set the scene for today's action. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite talked in government but we had precious little action from them. They took out their plans and gave them a dusting prior to presenting them to the people at the election for the third time in order to get Labour supporters to the poll. It is amazing how much more generous right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are now that they are in opposition. They have lost all semblance of constructive thinking and now seem to be adopting a carping attitude. The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) made a carping speech. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) referred to tax comparisons. It is wrong to take the pensioner in isolation from the rest of the economy. It has never been done in the past. It was not done under the last Labour Government. During their period of office escalating taxes hit hardest the elderly and most needy sections of the population.
However, tax cuts can be extremely helpful if they are used to ease wage claims. This is one of the de-escalating measures which the Government are taking to help all sections of the community. They will be very helpful to the one-third of pensioners who nay tax. I welcome the fact that no tax is to be paid on the 75p pension increase and other tax concessions. I hope it is not only for this one year. I like the system whereby pensions are eased on a taxation

basis. Supplementary pensioners will gain in full this year.
The aim of all pensioners is independence. This is the concern not just of the Department of Health and Social Security but of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should like to see us pressing the Chancellor more for taxation concessions on pensions. I should also like us to press local authorities to allow elderly people to continue working if they wish to do so. If old people want their independence and if they are useful to the community they should be allowed to do this. Widows need to be helped more than anybody else.
I welcome the proposals concerning the attendance allowance. I wonder whether we should reach 1975 or 1976 before we assist elderly people. It is a little worrying (to think that their benefits may be paid 18 months later than other benefits, although they have an equal and comparable need for assistance.
I wished to mention the question of young people of the age of 15 or 16 whose claims for benefit must also be considered, particularly in view of the extra year which they will spend at school in future. However, that is a matter for other legislation rather than for this Bill. We all want to see improvements for pensioners and other deserving people. If we want an adequate pension for all, the whole House will welcome the tax credit system suggested by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. It will help to overcome the problem which the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) mentioned about people being independent and not wishing to apply for supplementary benefits. Here is a system that will do it, and both sides of the House recognise this. The fact that the Government are suggesting it proves that they are aware of the need for progress. The further suggestions contained in "Strategy for Pensions" which are still to come will satisfy the needs of the pensioners and show that the Government are concerned about pensions and determined to do something for them.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) chided us about what


the Labour Government did for pensioners, but I do not wish to follow that part of his speech. He also referred to the need to be constructive. There is a vast difference between the situation now and the situation when the Labour Government took office. The troubles we inherited meant that we never had an opportunity of doing what we wanted to do within a "hand-away" Budget such as we had this year. If we had had such an opportunity, I should have demanded different priorities from those of this year's Budget.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr said that we should list all the things that the Government have done to help old-age pensioners and keep on reading that list. But we are dealing with the reality today, and there is no justification for self-congratulation by hon. Members on the Government benches. One only has to go round to old peoples' clubs and talk to the old people to learn whether or not they are better off than they have ever been. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) said, it is a plague on both our houses.
Statistics and percentages are bandied about, but what do percentages mean to old-age pensioners? We are in enough trouble with the railwaymen, the miners and others through talking about percentages. What we have to consider is the reality, and I see that reality in my constituency every day of the week. Out of 7 million old-age pensioners, 2 million are on supplementary benefit. The proportion on supplementary benefit must be much bigger in my industrialised constituency. There are no millionaire old-age pensioners there. Most of them cannot struggle along on their present pensions.
Recently I heard of a miner—a very level-headed man not given to excesses—who had worked in the mines for 52 years. All he left his widow was£2 in the Co-operative Bank and£5 in premium bonds. That is not an isolated case. I have never been so mad and bitter as I was when I found out that there are still people so badly off in our community. It is a stigma on our society.

Sir K. Joseph: Was he a pensioner?

Mr. Concannon: He was a pensioner, yes. That is an illustration of the position of our old-age pensioners.
If there ever was an opportunity to do something lasting for the old-age pensioners the Budget was that opportunity, and the opportunity was lost. I am sure that if it had been put to the people who were given concessions in the Budget they would gladly have said that the priorities should have been elsewhere.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) spoke about the priorities of the Labour Government. We had a bitter six years, and had we been able to get together the money we should not have handed it out in this fashion. We should have had quite different priorities. But that is the luck of the election. One can only say what a wonderful opportunity has been lost.
We must look closely at the future for our old-age pensioners. Governments are judged on what they do for their old-age pensioners. I was very much in favour of the "Crossman" Bill. The National Insurance system is creaking at the joints and another Bill is needed to deal with it. Our object should be to see that old-age pensioners do not have to apply for supplementary benefits. We must devise a way of ensuring that when people have worked hard in industry for 50 years they have something at the end to enable them to enjoy the few years of retirement which they have earned. The country has an obligation to do that.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Michael Meacher: There have been three main themes running through the debate which have been evoked by the need to answer three central questions. The first and most important of these is: what is regarded as being the appropriate level of pension for the retired in today's modern, so-called affluent society? Secondly: in a year of unprecedented Budget opportunity, have the pensioners and others who are wholly or largely dependent on welfare benefits received their fair share of the handout? Thirdly: since with the support of the whole House the Secretary of State has embarked on a campaign for the proper compensation of physical and mental handicap, is that strategy proceeding far enough and fast enough


in the direction of the most urgent priority?
The fundamental question is the simple one of what in today's terms we as a society regard as the appropriate minimum living standard for the retired population. The right hon. Gentleman's answer, of course, forms the centrepiece of the Bill. By no civilised standards can that answer be regarded as remotely adequate. Pensioners today are not even keeping up with prices, let alone with earnings.
Some months ago the right hon. Gentleman gave the pensioners a 20 per cent. rise. Since 1969, when the previous Government made their last up-rating, prices have risen by 21½per cent. It will get worse. Every month pensioners will become poorer and poorer in real terms than they were at the time of the last Labour Government up-rating. That is the meaning of the Bill. Never has there been a period of such total eclipse of the real increase in pension value as in these last few months. It is for that reason that the Government's resistance to the annual review has finally been overcome with, I am glad to say, pressure from back-benchers on both sides of the House.
It is also for exactly the same reason that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle) and the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson)—who is supposed to be an accountant—by disgracefully misleading statistics explained the differences between the parties in the increases in the pension in cash terms. Any accountant knows perfectly well that such comparisons are utterly meaningless unless they are given in real terms. Given in real terms, the impression would be entirely different. The Secretary of State has said that the up-rating under the Bill will restore the traditional relationship with earnings, and so by and large it will, but people will certainly have to wait for it, and they will have to wait a long time for it.
One cannot help noticing the progression of the Government's priorities. The Budget Statement was on 21st March. On 3rd May, only six weeks later, the£1 bonus arrived in the pay packet of the local electorate. Unfortunately, the pensioners were not valued quite so highly in terms of the local elections. On 2nd

October, six and a half months later and 20p worse off than in November, 1969, the pensioners will get their rise; but not until 4th June, 1973, nearly one and a quarter years after, will the severely disabled get their extension of the attendance allowance. If they are the oldest members of our society—and I strongly support the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King)—those aged 77 or over will not see it until December, 1974, two and a half years on, which means that they have a fair chance of not seeing it at all.
It is curious to withhold from benefit till the last those who are nearest to death, and it is in marked contrast to the eager enthusiasm of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the substantial estate duty remissions for the wealthy. That is not, however, the crucial point.
The crucial point is what is a proper standard of living for pensioners in our society with its present wealth. It is easy in examining the financial statistics to lose sight of the human beings we are talking about. I make no apology for quoting from a pamphlet which I recently received, put out by Help the Aged, entitled "Granny Come Home". The quotation I shall give is in no way exceptional, but entirely typical:
I am 78 and my wife is 74. Our total income is now£10:30 national assistance after paying a rent of£5:25 for a damp basement double bedsitting room. The balance has to keep us in food, clothing, heating and lighting. In really cold spells it costs us 15p a day for gas; even then, we use the gas as sparingly as possible by burning only five of our gas fire's nine burners. We have to huddle close to the fire or go to bed with a hot water bottle to survive sometimes.
We cook on a single gas ring. We do all our washing and airing in this one room. And we keep our expenses down by halving everything, like cutting a cake of soap in half and sparingly using the same for washing and bathing. We divide such things as oranges and apples by halving them; I do not remember the last time I ate a whole apple or orange at one meal.
Since boot repairers do not usually give receipts, we have to suffer the admittedly unavoidable humiliation of asking for one, thereby implying we live on national assistance. I am not merely imagining things when I say tradesmen as well as others do treat one with less respect once they realise one is receiving assistance. I have had this bitterly brought home to me.
It is years since we have been to a theatre or cinema. Clothing is a nightmare. I have two suits of 1938 vintage and a military overcoat made a year later.


We would like to attend a church service on Sunday, but we simply cannot afford to contribute to the offertory, so we usually stay at home. There is only one small consolation in all this. By our economies we have no debts, but this is not Life, with a capital L. in the midst of an affluent society.
We are the forgotten and unwanted generation.
Whatever else the Secretary of State may say,£6·75 per week for a single person is not a living wage. It is a disgrace to the conscience of this nation.
What is unforgivable is that it need not be so. In Britain the single-person pension has been maintained rigidly at 20 per cent. of national average earnings since 1948. In Germany the retirement pension is 60 per cent. of insurable earnings after 40 years' insurance. In Italy it varies between a minimum of£4 and a maximum of 74 per cent, of average earnings in the three years before retirement. In Belgium it is 60 per cent. of average gross earnings subject to insurance. In France it is 40 per cent. of average earnings of the last ten years, varying between£2½and£10. In the Netherlands it is almost£10, less one-fiftieth for every year short of insurance below 50. In Luxembourg it is a minimum of£6½ and a maximum of just over 80 per cent. of insured earnings. Why in Britain are we stuck at 20 per cent.?
If there is one outstanding difference between the parties on social policy, it is over this fundamental question of what constitutes a decent pension level for the elderly. The Crossman scheme remains the symbol of Labour's belief expressed in practical terms, that the basic pension in old age should be more than doubled in its relationship to national average earnings. Equally the "Strategy for Pensions" scheme is a monument to the Conservative belief that income inequalities in working life should be fully reflected in old age, even if this means that the submerged tenth are left for ever below the subsistence level.
The Crossman scheme would have removed from poverty in old age all but 13 per cent. of those who would otherwise have fallen below the supplementary benefits line. The Joseph scheme, if implemented, is unlikely to reduce the present spread of pension poverty even by the year 2019. A starker difference of philosophy in the attitude of the two parties over the critical question of what

the pension objective is can, I think, hardly be imagined. I make no apology to the hon. Member for Enfield; West for our being proprietorial about the elderly; we are, just as the Conservative Party is proprietorial about the rich.
On this occasion I shall forbear to anticipate further the coming legislation, except to say that we appreciate the difficulties in which it has placed the Secretary of State today. If we had accepted that the single-person pension of 20 per cent. of national average earnings was a shame to our self-respect as a nation, and if he had decided to raise it by stages to a new higher level of, say, initially 30 per cent. he would have placed at risk his whole "Strategy for Pensions" package, because these latter proposals would then have confronted a sizeable number of people with the prospect of an actual reduction in pension provision.
It is for that reason, quite apart from the well-known ideological preference of the Conservative Party for retrenchment in favour of the rich, that we are being invited today to regard a pension of one-fifth of national average earnings as adequate. As has been said, the Bill is an opportunity tragically missed and that, I believe, is the key to it. In this year of unique reflationary potential such as we have not had since the war and will not have for many years again, a clear, ringing commitment could have been made to a programme for phasing out means-testing in old age and for raising the pension to a new and more decent level in relation to national average earnings.
The cost of taking all pensions up to the supplementary benefit level and thus eliminating the need for all means-testing can be calculated at about£675 million, and I believe that that is roughly in line with the "Strategy for Pensions" calculation. But net of the consequent savings on supplementary pensions the cost comes down to£470 million, and net of tax clawback also it comes down to about£400 million. Given the right priorities, that is a charge which is surely within our national capacity to absorb if spread over a period of, say, five years.
Nor need the effect have been regressive if the chance had been taken to restore the Exchequer contribution, which is now at the extremely low level of


about 15 per cent., back to its 1950 level of 24 per cent. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) made that point. This would make the provision of pensions once again far more the responsibility of the whole community, and far less merely a transfer of resources to the aged mainly from the skilled working class. It would also have been possible to avoid regressive repercussions for the lower paid by making a further extension, as should be the case, to the graduated contribution band.
But no; the opportunity for a better deal for the elderly has been tragically missed. The champagne corks are popping in the City as the share index climbs to an all-time high, while pensioners are still obliged to halve their oranges and their apples because they cannot afford whole ones for a meal.
The second main question which has ranged through the debate is: how much have the pensioners received in handouts in this unprecedented Budget year? Although the Secretary of State failed to make this clear, I hope he will support the point which I made when I intervened in his speech, because it is important. Since the up-rating is merely a counter-inflationary restoration of purchasing power, the simple answer to this question is that, parallel to the£1 tax cut in the pay packet, the pensioners have received hardly anything at all. If they had received their share of the Budget proceeds proportionate to their numbers in the population, they would have gained about£400 million—roughly the cost of the proposals I have outlined. But, even if the demands of the investing class were too voracious for an equitable share-out of this kind to be allowed, several other policies could have been adopted by the Secretary of State if he was really determined to ease the hardship of so many of our elderly today. If the Secretary of State refuses to give a pension rise over and above that need merely to keep up with earnings—this has been the aim of both parties with a certain margin of error it has been achieved in various years and it will be achieved again in October, 1972—he could have provided automatically a reasonable heating allowance for all pensioners in receipt of supplementary

benefit. At present only 2 per cent. of pensioners receive an exceptional needs payment for this purpose, which is pathetic, and even of this tiny group only one in 100 gets the top rate of 75p a week, which is only about one-third of the annual average weekly heating charges of the elderly in wintertime.
The seriousness of this situation has recently been revealed by the Task Force report, which showed that more than one-quarter of the elderly people in its sample did not get enough warmth by day, and almost one-quarter by night. That has to be compared with the statistics of those receiving heating allowances. Of 550 in receipt of supplementary benefit questioned on this matter, only 11 per cent. were even aware of their entitlement to a heating allowance.
If the Secretary of State were really determined to take the sting of cold out of pensioners' lives, he could have awarded, at a cost of only£50 million, a£2 per week payment for the three winter months for all old people in receipt of supplementary benefit.
Alternatively, another way by which—if he could not or would not give a special boost to pensioners—he could still have concentrated help where the need is greatest, would have been by the introduction of a disability supplement to the retirement pension of, say,£1·50 a week, a figure I have chosen because it would again have represented a cost of about£50 million.
This would have had the advantage of not being dependent on the supplementary benefit—since it is recognised that take-up of this benefit is always incomplete—but could have been a valuable interim measure until the extended attendance allowance is applied to the elderly as the last of the three relevant categories.
It is clear that several policy options were available to the Government if they were determined to secure for pensioners a place in the concessionary stakes this year, but the Government have not shown willing.
The Secretary of State was asked to end the scandal whereby old people may be "awarded" a 50p heating allowance but are then told that they are already receiving it because it is included in the


long-term addition, and that they are actually therefore entitled to nothing extra. On that the right hon. Gentleman said "No". He was then asked to raise the£2 disregard for supplementary benefit purposes, and, although since its inception it has declined and is now worth about£1·50 a week, the right hon. Gentleman again said "No".
The right hon. Gentleman's colleague at the Treasury was asked to give special extra marginal age exemption reliefs for the elderly, but he said "No". Similarly, on behalf of the unemployed, now that 6 per cent. of them have exhausted their right to unemployment benefit and are not in receipt of supplementary benefit either, he was asked to extend entitlement beyond the present one-year period, but to that he also said "No."
In view of the current£350 million surplus on the Industrial Injuries Fund, the Government were asked if they would extend benefit to persons injured by industrial process. I assure the Secretary of State that this figure is correct. Nevertheless, the Government said "No".
These negatives are not in line with the impression that we are given by Government spokesmen, and particularly by the Under-Secretary when he recites the long list of the Government's finely tuned measures of selectivity.
Two important facets of this list are not immediately clear. To begin with, the vast majority of the aggregate sum involved—no doubt the hon. Gentleman will repeat the figure of£1,000 million tonight—is comprised purely of up-rating and in no sense is an extension of existing benefits.
Where new benefits have been introduced, such as the invalidity allowance and the pension age additions, their scope in coverage and value has been relatively peripheral and their total cost in scarcely exceeding£100 million is marginal in terms of a give-away Budget.
The second point which is not normally clear from the Under-Secretary's list is the very large extent to which the benefits are contribution-financed, so that they are not at all directly comparable with the tax concessions made in successive recent Budgets. On this basis the Exchequer contribution to the benefits

under the Bill explicitly for the elderly can be calculated, from the information in the Bill, at about£85 million, but to this must, to be fair, be added the£15million non-recurring concession of tax for the pension increase for this year only, making a grand total of about£100 million this year.
This amount means that the average pensioner will get about£13, compared with a Budget gain to the 1· per cent. wealthiest in our society, with incomes of over£5,000 a year, of£145 million through the raising of the personal reliefs and the lifting of the investment surcharge alone, quite apart from other lucrative but essentially unquantifiable gains to this group, involving an average gain to each of them of over£500. In other words, the richest members of society have in this last six weeks been given an extra£500 each while the pensioners have been given an extra£13 each.
It is against the backcloth of redistribution on this scale to other non-needy groups in the population that we protest at the gross injustice of the Bill. In particular, it is in the perspective of these other dealings within the Budget that we believe that the rejection of any major alternative concessionary move is so mean and unfair to the elderly in our population.
The major innovation in the Bill is the extension of the attendance allowance, which we all unreservedly welcome. This, however, at once prompts a question of the Government's whole strategy on behalf of the disabled. An acceptable strategy of the range required would have to take two main forms, and they are not inclusive but complementary.
One is to extend disability payments at least to the 1,250,000 seriously handicapped members of society, and it must be done in a manner which irons out the anomalies which so markedly characterise our pot-holed system of compensating handicap.
The other is to construct an effective network of community services which should partly have the function of substituting income deficiency to a degree but, more important, would channel otherwise wasted skills and capacities into more productive independence. On neither front can any objective person


say that the Government shows signs of developing a decisive large-scale strategy.
At present about 75,000 persons are in receipt of the attendance allowance, and it is expected that this number will increase when the extension is made to about 250,000.

Sir K. Joseph: It will increase by an additional 250,000.

Mr. Meacher: That is correct. In addition to the 75,000 there will be another 250,000. However, this is still a long way even from the initial target of 1,250,000 seriously handicapped persons in our society.
The Secretary of State will no doubt argue that he cannot administratively go faster. But for us at the grass roots, in the constituencies, it is all too clear that, so far from beginning to assault the citadels of this problem, we are still skirmishing—"floundering" might be a better word—in the foothills, and to give point to the human element I quote a current constituency case which I have no doubt, in its general approach, could be replicated by many hon. Members.
Mrs. H, as I shall call her, wrote to me about her two sons, both aged about 30, one a spastic and the other an epileptic. The latter, whom I will call John. and I quote the letter:
suffers from exceptionally severe epilepsy, sometimes involving six or seven fits within 24 hours and regularly at least that number each week. He receives no warning of the fits and therefore often receives facial or head injuries as he falls. For example, during the last fortnight he has been in hospital three times for injuries caused during fits, and even hospital care is no answer because his cuts and bruises require attention. This means that he cannot be left alone. Without doubt, therefore, he needs continual supervision to avoid substantial danger to himself"—
which is one of the criteria—
Furthermore, his fits cause him to urinate so that at night his bedding and night clothes have to be changed, up to two or three times during one night, and during the day his clothing requires changing.
Mr. H also happens to be off work because he has a coronary condition, and, as I have already said, the other son is also appreciably handicapped because he is a spastic.
The application for attendance allowance was made for both sons, supported by their doctor, and it was turned down.

Therefore, I tabled a Question to the Secretary of State asking whether he would require that in handling such applications account should be taken not only of the physical needs and capabilities of the applicant himself but of the capabilities of the family or of the caring persons to meet those needs. The Secretary of State said, "No", on the distinctly delphic ground that:
The essence of the attendance allowance concept is to help any household containing a severely disabled person".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1972; Vol. 835, c. 20.]
That is exactly what I thought it was and is precisely why I tabled the Question in the first place.
But the point I am making is not merely a plea for Mrs. H in my constituency but far more for all those unknown Mrs. Ifs throughout the country. The point I am making is that, whilst we proceed so slowly in implementing these new proposals and continue to draw the regulations so tightly, inevitably inequities and anomalies of this kind will be increased, as is shown by the fact that by any reasonable standards Mrs. H and her family clearly need at least one disability payment. We have already heard today from the Secretary of State that the extension at a lowered rate does not necessarily mean that they will now get the benefit, having been turned down at the higher rate. But when we are having to wait two and a half years for the full phasing in of what is still a very moderate extension of the attendance allowance, these are serious consequences of the failure to proceed with all due urgency.
Quite apart from the question of the speed of the development of policy, there is also the apparent lack of any attempt by the Government to use this advance to rectify the absurd haphazardness of the present system of disability payments. At present, some awards are made according to the place or circumstances in which the disability first occurred, others according to the individual's circumstances and others according to the contribution record, and sometimes by a test of means. One asks why there should be these variations. What attempt is being made to iron them out? A war disability pension for a major-general at the 100 per cent. rate is almost double that for a private with the same degree


of impairment. Is that really justified? Some of the war disabled also get additional unemployability supplements, constant attendance allowances, exceptionally severe disablement allowances, comforts allowances, allowances for lowered standard of occupation, and clothing allowances. Why do they go only to the war disabled? Why do they not go to others who are equally or, perhaps, even more seriously handicapped?
Nothing is being done under the Bill to rectify the anomalies whereby at present a man can draw a full disablement benefit whilst in full-time work and can also obtain sickness benefit in addition to the pension? Yet if a man who became disabled at work does not meet the conditions of eligibility for a pension he may get only sickness benefit even though he is more severely incapacitated. A man disabled outside his workplace gets no pension at all but only the basic sickness benefits, while a disabled housewife may not even qualify for sickness benefit and may be forced back on to a test of means for supplementary benefit. If her husband is in full-time work she may get not even that but no benefit whatsover.
This is not a Bill with a thought-out strategy. It does nothing to remedy the extraordinarly irrational patchwork of anomalies under the present system or to establish the idea of a pension for the pre-retirement disabled through the development of earnings-related invalidity benefits—a serious omission that occurs again in the "Strategy for Pensions" proposals. Britain thus retains the dubious distinction of being the only one of seven western countries recently surveyed by the Disablement Income Group in which there is no pension for any category of disabled apart from war and industrially disabled.
The Bill does nothing to provide any of the desperately needed concessions for the elderly which, even if not given with the largesse which has been magnaminously reserved for the wealthy by the Chancellor, would still make a difference between the raw hardship of many millions of elderly people in our society today and the prospect of a slightly more civilised standard of life in old age.
Above all, the Bill does nothing to lift the value of the pension from its present

degradingly low level to a more civilised standard more in keeping with the wealth of Britain in the 1970s. It is the product of a schizophrenic party philosophy that believes in huge prosperity handouts for the few rich but only small, selective, mere cost-of-living increases for the many poor. It is an unexciting and very modest Measure, and, whilst we shall seek to improve it in Committee, it remains a monument to major missed opportunity.

7.56 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I am sure that the whole House would wish to send good wishes to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), who normally takes part in our debates, and hopes that he will soon be back among us.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). He has just made his first speech from the Opposition Front Bench and I congratulate him on that.

Mr. Bidwell: A devastating speech.

Mr, Dean: We shall come to the content of it shortly, but I am starting with the compliments.
The Bill has been welcomed from all sides of the House with, admittedly, varying degrees of enthusiasm. My right hon. Friend said that it was a landmark. In saying that, he meant that it was a step forward. But, equally, he acknowledged that there is a great deal more to be done and that we intend to build on this progress.
Some of the comments which have come from the Opposition Front Bench, from the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) in particular, and some of the promises that she has made, some of the tossing about of figures here, there and everywhere—£50 million more there,£200 million more somewhere else—would have been more convincing if the Labour Party's record had been better. It would have been more convincing if we had heard a little more about whose contributions would rise and by how much, whose tax reliefs would be cancelled and by how much, in order to pay for the things that the right hon. Lady put forward. They were unconvincing for those two reasons.

Mrs. Castle: Was the hon. Gentleman listening? Was he not given indications about what would be the yield of increasing the Exchequer contribution from 18 per cent. to 25 per cent.? Also, was he not informed that we would much prefer to have the money spent in that way than in the £300 million reliefs for investment income?

Mr. Dean: Yes, but what the right hon. Lady did not attempt to do—and this is what matters—was to convey what the effect would be on each individual family in the land. That is what matters when one is making rash promises of that kind, with very little indication to the country outside about how much it will cost each family.
I refer briefly to three main aspects of the Bill before dealing with the points on which I have been asked to reply. The first is that the Bill is a further expression of the policy, which we started in the 1970 Act, to give additional help to those groups in our community who particularly need that help and who have not been receiving it hitherto.
The 1970 Act introduced pensions for the over-80s and for the young widow, and the attendance allowance for the severely disabled. This Bill continues and extends those arrangements. For the over-80s, for example, there was no pension before it was introduced in the 1970 Act. As from October, 1972, under the Bill, it will be £4·05. The pension for the widow aged between 40 and 50, who previously got nothing, will be in October this year, for the woman widowed at 41 or when her children ceased to be dependent, £2·50 and for the woman aged 49 it will be £6·28. All these figures relate to situations where previously no allowance was available.
The new higher rate for the attendance allowance will be £5·40 as from October, 1972, and the extension which is being introduced will bring in additional groups.
That is the first aspect, building on the improvement of the new allowances and pensions which we introduced for those sections of the community who were hitherto neglected and left out.
The second aspect is the annual review for all. I am glad that this has been welcomed in all parts of the House, because there is no doubt that the Bill,

which provides for an annual review for the first time, gives an assurance that from now on, at the onset of each winter, pensions will be increased at least to compensate for prices, and we hope if possible to do more than that, as indeed we were able to do last year and as we shall do this year. It is far better to make modest promises and to do more to beat the target than to make big promises and to disappoint expectations.
Under the Bill, then, which improves benefits for all, 11 million people will benefit and the additional cost will be just under £500 million a year. On top of that, many pensioners will benefit from the Budget—from the tax relief measures and the increase in the age relief and exemption limits.
The third aspect of the Bill which is important is the fair distribution of the cost. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle) in particular referred to this aspect. He said that he thought we had got that about right. It is important to recognise that this is not a funded scheme. This is a pay-as-you-go scheme. All the money for the existing level of benefits and for the improved level of benefits must come from the contributor and the taxpayer. The taxpayer's contribution through the Exchequer supplement is being maintained at broadly the same level at which it was stabilised by the previous Government, namely 18 per cent. This means that the Exchequer's—the taxpayer's—contribution to the scheme under the new arrangements will amount to £580 million a year.
We are moving over to contributions based on earnings, which means that the higher paid will pay relatively more and the lower paid will pay relatively less. As a result, those who are earning under £19 a week will pay no increase in contributions to finance this increase in benefit; those earning £30 a week will pay an increase of Sp; those at the top end of the scale—the new ceiling of £48 or more—will pay an extra 39p.
About half the money now raised for the scheme comes from graduated contributions. In other words, we are fairly well on the way towards moving from the existing hybrid system to the fully graduated system which we plan to introduce as from 1975.
These are the three most important aspects of our "Strategy for Pensions" which are distinct and which represent a major advance: namely, special help for the priority groups through the selective improvements in the Bill, improvements for all through the annual review and a sounder and fairer financial base through graduated pensions.
There is also coming along in the future the tax credit scheme which will very substantially alter the picture and will deal with many of the weaknesses which the present arrangements are subject to in the basic scheme and in the supplementary scheme, one weakness being the dependence of a fairly large number of people on supplementary benefit to supplement the benefit they get from the basic scheme themselves.
The right hon. Lady raised some points about a comparison of the records. I shall deal briefly with this point because most people are bored staff with comparisons of the records. It is clear that the right hon. Lady cannot stand at the Dispatch Box in a white sheet in this regard. Although the improvement in the pension which took place in March, 1965—the first Labour up-rating—gave a fairly substantial increase in the real value, each one after that got worse and worse. The longer they got away from those Tory years the more difficult the Labour Government found it even to maintain the purchasing power of the pension. The last increase in November, 1969, did not even preserve the purchasing power as it was on the previous occasion.
The right hon. Lady went on to say that the national superannuation scheme which was introduced by the Labour Government would have solved all this. It would have solved all this if one believed the assumptions on which it was based, if one was prepared to trust the blank cheque on tomorrow on which the entire scheme was based. That is why it was fundamentally unsound and that is why it was so unpopular in the country as a whole, plus the fact that it would have meant the nationalisation of pension provision in old age and the cutting back of occupational pension schemes.
I much preferred the more modern approach of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who said that what mattered now was for the trade

unions to take a bigger part in bargaining for improved pension arrangements. I hope that the trade unions will listen to the advice which the hon. Gentleman offered them. What the hon. Gentleman said—I do not think I am in any way misinterpreting him—was: is it not far better to go a little easy on wage claims for today and to go a bit harder on improved pension arrangements for tomorrow?
I entirely agree with that approach, and it is very nice to know that in our "Strategy for Pensions", which puts the emphasis on occupational schemes and on trade unions playing their part, we have an ally in the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bidwell: Is not the serious deficiency of occupational pension schemes that most of them do not carry transferability rights? Has not the Confederation of British Industry resisted transferability because it does not believe in the flexibility that would arise there-from and the fact that with transferability workers would not be glued to employers so much as they are today?

Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair on employers. However that may be, the fact is that under our proposed Bill which is outlined in "Strategy for Pensions" the pension rights of individuals will be preserved for them or transferred with them. This will be a big advance.
I accept the proposition that in these days a man is as much entitled to his pension rights as he is to his weekly or monthly earnings; and therefore, when he moves his job, those rights should be preserved for him in the most appropriate form, or he should be able to take them with him to his next job. It is one of the main aspects of our "Strategy for Pensions" White Paper that this will become compulsory.
Equally, it will mean an improvement in some occupational pension schemes. They will provide a minimum level of benefit and they will have to provide cover for widows, which is one of the gaps at the present time. They will have to provide special arrangements to ensure that the pension is improved after it is awarded to take account of inflation. These will mean major advances in occupational pension scheme provision and I am sure that as a result the trade


unions will become more interested in bargaining about these matters and encouraging employers to fill the gaps which exist in occupational pensions now. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Fife, West and with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson) about these matters.
The right hon. Member for Blackburn and a number of other hon. Members raised points about the heating allowance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not say very much about this in his introductory remarks because if he had he would probably have been ruled out of order as heating allowances are not dealt with in the Bill. They will come later under the normal procedure, which has been adopted by all parties and which is the law of the land, under which improvements in the supplementary benefit arrangements are made by regulation and not by a Bill. Perhaps I might say, however, that heating allowances present a very old problem and we have to start from scratch in grappling with it when we came into office.
The regulations which will come in due course will provide for an improvement in the basic scale of supplementary benefit which will take into account rises in heating costs. They will also provide for an increase in the long-term addition to which every pensioner on supplementary benefit is entitled. Also there will be an increase of 20 per cent. in the existing level of the heating allowances. The right hon. Lady asked why we did not give all pensioners who are on supplementary benefit a 50p heating allowance. I think she believed that it would cost about £1 million to do so, but the figure would be £50 million, which would add very substantially to the cost.
In addition to the improvements which are to be introduced in October we are also examining with the local authorities and with the various voluntary bodies which are interested in this matter other ways of dealing with the problem of heating and heat loss from houses. It may well be that as well as improving the allowances it is equally important to improve insulation so that the additional allowances do not heat the street but heat the pensioners. This is one of the things we are looking at.

Mrs. Castle: As the Under-Secretary has dealt with this, can we now have an answer to the detailed points I put to the Secretary of State? He has spoken of a figure of 20 per cent., but 20 per cent. of what? Since 20 per cent. on the top rate is 5p, does that mean that some people on the bottom rate will get ½p? How many people will get the 20 per cent.? How many more heating allowances will be paid as a result of the decision to ignore the lop increase in the long-term addition?

Mr. Dean: The 20 per cent. is 20 per cent. on existing allowances. We estimate very roughly—it cannot be more than a rough estimate—that the additional cost will be about £1 million a year. But we do not know how many more people will come on to the allowances until all the existing books are looked at individually as they come up for renewal. For some months books coming in for renewal have been examined to see whether people not now receiving a heating allowance should be getting it. Until this process is complete it will not be possible to say how many more people might be eligible for the allowance.
The hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) apologised for not being able to be present when I replied to his point about disregards. There are no proposals to change the disregards this year but we are committed to a review of the matter. We recognise that it is some time since they were last improved.
There have been a number of questions about timing. The right hon. Member for Blackburn asked why we had waited until October and the hon. Member for Fife, West suggested that if it took time to get the administrative machinery into operation, back payments could be made. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay said it was right to pay the increases in the autumn but suggested that they could be announced later towards the summer. The point is that now that there is an annual review all pensioners know that at a regular date each year their pensions will be improved.
We have to decide therefore the best time of year to do this. In our judgment it is at the onset of winter, in October or November. Therefore the timing of the announcement, the time when the


Bill is put before the House and when the administrative procedures are carried out, are all in a sense of secondary importance. I accept that it is arguable when the announcement should be made but surely it is right that if there is to be an annual increase it should be made at the beginning of the winter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay asked why we have to carry out the annual up-rating by means of a Bill and whether it would not be simpler to do it in some other way. In the White Paper "Strategy for Pensions" we propose that the increases should be brought into force by regulation instead of by means of a Bill.
I am very glad of the welcome that has been given to the attendance allowance provisions and the other improvements for the disabled which are contained in the Bill. The latest figures show that the number of allowances now in payment is 74,000. That represents a success rate of 62 per cent. With adults it is slightly lower and with children slightly higher. It is a very creditable achievement to have got the new allowances off the ground so quickly. Nevertheless it has underlined the need to extend it as fast as possible. Probably every hon. Member has had to deal with a heart-rending case which has fallen just on the wrong side of the line. When there is no allowance there are no hard cases, but the moment an allowance begins to be given the hard cases begin to arise.
I agreed with the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) when he said that we have only touched the tip of the iceberg. This is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is extremely anxious to extend the allowances as fast as possible. Every ingenuity of man will be used to do this but we have to take into account that procedures must be undergone. Each individual case must be very carefully assessed and it is largely for this reason that it will take time to bring within the arrangements probably another quarter of a million people. It may well be more. We under-estimated the figure when we thought that 50,000 would be eligible. Already 74,000 allowances are in payment, and they are still coming in, and reviews of those who are dissatisfied are still being carried out. This is one of the

reasons why it is not possible to start taking on the first lot of phase 2 until almost December. The workload of phase 1 is still very considerable.
In addition, all the preparatory work for phase 2 must be done. The claim forms and publicity material must be prepared. The BMA must be consulted. The local doctors, the general practitioners who assist in this process, must be informed. Even when we start, each claim must be looked at individually. Many processes are involved. The individual must claim. The local general practitioner must send in his report, which must then go to one of the doctors nominated by the Attendance Allowance Board. He must give his judgment as to whether the person concerned comes within the category. The board must keep a careful check on the claims to see that uniformity is established in different parts of the country. The cases being reviewed must go through a second procedure, with a second medical report. The person concerned must have the opportunity to comment on the report. All this inevitably takes a great deal of time. Much of the central processing is done at the unit at Norcross, where we have some highly experienced and devoted doctors. Inevitably the limitations of medical manpower are one of the factors which mean that it will take time before phase 2 can be put into operation. As my right hon. Friend said, it will probably be towards the end of 1974 before the next phase is completed, but I can assure the House that if it is possible to improve on that date it will be done.
Several of my hon. Friends asked me on what criteria the very difficult decision has been made as to who should come first and who should come last in phase 2. Perhaps I may give the likely figures first. These can be no more than estimates, but we reckon that there will probably be about 50,000 awards to those of working age. In the children's group we expect another 50,000 or so. Among the 65–74-year-olds we expect about 40,000, and among the over-75s about 90,000. The over-75s will easily be the biggest group.
Why have we, on the advice of the Attendance Allowance Board, decided on the order that we have? It was an extremely difficult decision, because one


could make a strong argument for putting it the other way round. But those of working age are likely to have had less opportunity than others to build up savings, and the psychological shock for them of becoming disabled is considerable. It was a combination of those two factors. Many children must be cared for in any event, particularly when they are young. Some of the elderly have had an opportunity of building up savings. Most of them are on a pension, and on a supplementary pension if they require additional resources. Some of them are being helped by their local authorities through the local authority social service departments. Perhaps as important is the psychological factor that the human frame is more conditioned to disability in old age than in youth. Those were the sort of factors we considered in making the very difficult decision as to who should come first and who should wait a little longer.
That is one aspect of the extension, but there are two other features of the Bill which are part of the package for the disabled that I should like briefly to mention. The first is the amount that can be earned while people are receiving sickness or similar benefits. The present figure is only £2 a week, which has not been altered since 1958. It is a very low figure, which tends to discourage rehabilitation. It is to be increased to £4·50, an increase of 125 per cent.
The other feature concerns the wives of invalidity and retirement pensioners. At present they receive the married women's rate of sickness benefit but under the proposals they will receive the full rate, which is £2 more. The intention is to recognise that they are breadwinners and should be treated as such when they become sick.
This package for the disabled has four features: the attendance allowance up-rated; the extension of the allowance to other groups of people: more encouragement to people who are recovering to earn without losing support; and the wife breadwinner of a retired or disabled husband receiving the full rate of benefit rather than the married women's rate when she is sick. These improvements are a modest start along the road to greater help to those who are disabled. fn the first full year after the extension

comes into operation we shall be spending on the attendance allowance about £70 million a year, whereas when we came to office we were spending nothing. This is a substantial improvement.
I commend the Bill to the House. We feel that it is a modest improvement in our arrangements. It brings additional help to needy groups of people. It more than restores the value of the pension to all who are receiving it. We in no sense regard this with complacency. We regard it merely as a step in the progress which we have already made with social security and which we are determined to continue.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1965, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965, and the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1967 as to the rate or amount of benefit and contributions and otherwise make provision as to the subject matter of those Acts, it is expedient to authorise the undermentioned payments out of moneys provided by Parlia-ment—

(1) Such additional payments on account of retirement pensions as result from raising to £4·05 and £2·50 the weekly rates of £3·60 and £2·20 fixed by the National Insurance Act 1971, or from raising the weekly rates of the increases (where payable) for children or adult dependants.
(2) Such additional payments on account of attendance allowances as result—

(a) from raising to £5·40 the weekly rate of £4·80 fixed by the National Insurance Act 1971; or
(b) from relaxing the conditions for payment of attendance allowances in so far as these depend on the requirements to which the beneficiary is subject by reason of his disabilities; or
(c) from the introduction for persons with less onerous requirements of attendance allowances payable at a weekly rate of £3·60.
(3) In connection with the increase of contributions under section 3 (flat rate contributions) of the National Insurance Act


1965 or under section 2(1)(a) of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965, the payment of any resulting increase in the sums payable as aforesaid by way of Exchequer supplement under section 7 or, as the case may be, section 2(I)(b) of the Act.
(4) The payment to the National Insurance Fund, in addition to the Exchequer supplements under the National Insurance Act 1965, in respect of each financial year after the year 1971–72 of the sum of £190 million, instead of the amounts required by section 1(5) of the National Insurance Act 1971.
(5) Subject to the provision made by section 85 of the National Insurance Act 1965 for reimbursement out of the National Insurance Fund, or by section 61 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965, for reimbursement out of the Industrial Injuries Fund, the payment of any increase attributable to the Act of the present Session in the expenses of the Secretary of State for Social Services or any other government department which are so payable under either of those sections (any reference in this paragraph to section 61 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965 being taken to include that section as applied by section 13 of the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1967).
(6) Such additional payments as may result from amendments of section 13 of the National Insurance Act 1971—

(a) to extend the cases in which age addition is payable out of moneys provided by Parliament; or
(b) to extend to expenses incurred by virtue of later enactments the expenses which under section 13(3) are not to be reimbursed out of the National Insurance Fund.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

Orders of the Day — LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

PERSONS ELIGIBLE FOR ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE

8.26 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 11, after 'income', insert:
'other than the rent of the dwellinghouse in which he ordinarily resides'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Miss Harvie Anderson): With this Amendment we shall take Amendment No. 4, in line 13, after 'capital', insert:
'other than the dwellinghouse in which he ordinarily resides where it has a rateable value of less than £400 and is situated in the area of the Greater London Council or it has a rateable value of less than £200 elsewhere'.

Mr. Fraser: The purpose of the Amendments is to add to the disregards in calculating the disposable income and disposable capital of those applying for legal advice and assistance under the Bill. First, an applicant's rent would be disregarded in calculating his income. The Bill provides for a limit of disposable capital of £125. Under our Amendment, the value of dwellings owned by those likely to use the scheme would be exempt. We have chosen as a capital disregard all houses which have a rateable value of under £400 in London and under £200 elsewhere, the same test as is applied under the Rent Acts and the Leasehold Reform Act. I assume that that would exempt the dwelling house of almost everyone who would apply for legal aid under this scheme. Both these proposals have the merit of simplicity for the solicitor who has to calculate the resources of his client.
On the question of income, the Lord Advocate told us in Committee that there would be no contribution for a person applying for legal advice and assistance whose gross income was below about £730 per annum and that a person would pay a contribution whose gross income was up to about £1,450 per annum, above which a client would no longer be eligible for advice under this scheme. The right hon. and learned


Gentleman explained that the deductions from disposable income would be, first of all, deductions which are at present deductible at source in any case, such as income tax and national insurance contributions, and, secondly, deductions in respect of dependants on a fixed scale.
We say that rent is a substantial, regular and easily ascertainable deduction from a person's income, but it varies enormously. It would not be unusual to find a regulated rent in some parts of London of £8·50 per week, and indeed many council tenants find that they are having to pay rents of that size. If rents are left out of account in assessing disposable income, despite their variations, it could frustrate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's objective, which is to bring the legal aid scheme and the legal advice and assistance scheme broadly into line. More justice would be done if rent were treated as a disregard. Rent is ascertainable by the solicitor. There is usually the evidence of the rent book or some other written evidence. There should be no difficulty about using this element in assessing a person's disposable income.
8.30 p.m.
Under the present legal aid scheme, the value of the dwelling house up to £5,000 is left out of account in calculating capital available. As I understood it from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in Committee, under the £25 scheme—which is this scheme—the same disregard will apply. There may be difficulties, however. I want to quote a few words he used in Committee in speaking about disregard of the dwelling house:
Here again one has to accept that a more rough and ready calculation has to be made for the purposes of this scheme than that made by the Supplementary Benefits Commission for the purposes of the legal aid scheme. For example, it is the practice of the Commission to make a valuation of property if there is any doubt. In this instance the solicitor will proceed on the bona fide estimate of the value of the property which he is given by his client."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 20th April, 1972; c. 32]
But it is difficult now to make bona fide estimates of the value of a dwelling house. I have examples in my constituency where people started to sell their houses in February at a price of £7,000 to find

that the value has risen to £12,000 already. Under this Government, gazumping has become one of the few growth industries.
I am sure that the experience in my constituency is shared by many others in London and other conurbations. Few houses in any London constituency are worth under £5,000. Indeed, it is our experience that practically everyone on the average wage in London cannot now afford to buy a house at all. The effect of keeping the £5,000 disregard for a dwelling house will be to exclude practically every owner-occupier in the greater London area from the advantages of this scheme. Some owner-occupiers will be earning wages which will take them outside the scheme in any case, but there are people like pensioners who have paid for their house and have only their old-age pension as income but will still be left out if there is a £5,000 disregard. This will pose serious problems for the legal aid scheme as well.
There are two arguments. The first and perhaps the main argument is that unless we have a more generous disregard for dwelling houses many people will be excluded. Secondly, it is extremely difficult now even to estimate value. Prices are going up so rapidly that it is difficult for the client, let alone the solicitor. to make a bona fide valuation.
Moreover, a house is not a realisable asset. It may be that the client is seeking advice about a compulsory purchase order which affects it or about the behaviour of his neighbour or about a nuisance he has suffered. He wants rapid advice under the scheme. If his house is worth over £5,000 he is debarred from advice under the scheme. But he cannot realise the house rapidly. He cannot realise £25 on his house. It would be impracticable. One needs another test.
The final argument for the Amendment, which would base the calculation on rateable value, is that values vary enormously from one part of the country to another. If we took rateable value as the basis, it would make the scheme much simpler to operate and the disregard easier to ascertain. The value of the disregard would not be eroded by inflation—and the same argument is true of using rent as a disregard. For reasons of common sense and equity, the Amendment should be accepted.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Norman Wylie): The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) has predictably and fairly set out the effects of both Amendments. We had in Committee a series of discussions on this aspect of the scheme in general. I endeavoured to point out then that there were two characteristics of the scheme which we were seeking to promote. One was by and large to keep it in line on the financial structure with the legal aid scheme itself. The other was in the interests of economy—this is, after all, a £25 scheme that we are dealing with—to simplify the process by which the scheme was operated. We are imposing on the solicitor the function presently performed by the Supplementary Benefits Commission under the principal scheme.
In dealing with disregard of rent, I said in Committee that it is a question of judgment. Where does one draw the line? The Government in promoting the scheme on the recommendation of the advisory committee, which lies behind the scheme, and in the interests of simplicity have greatly narrowed down the disregards which can be taken into account in assessing needs. They are narrowed down to what one might call "take home" pay with allowances for dependants. But, to compensate for the narrowing of the disregards in the interests of simplicity, the financial structure of the scheme has been modified in relation to the legal aid scheme itself.
As I pointed out in Committee, the disposable income limits in this scheme are different from the disposable income limits in the primary scheme, and the effect overall is, broadly speaking, to bring the operation of the two schemes in their financial aspects into line. If we were to accept the Amendment, alterations would have to be made to the Schedule and to the Bill generally in relation to the financial structure of the scheme.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the proposal of the advisory committee. The proposal, on page 14 of the report, was:
Anyone would be eligible whose net weekly income after deductions (which would include an element for rent) was £15 or less.
Later, the Committee said:
Where the net weekly income is £8 or less no contributions will be payable".

Under the Bill we have a disposable income of £20 as a comparable figure to the £15, and a starting point of contribution of £11 as against £8. Would the Lord Advocate explain the relationship between those figures and the figures in the Bill, particularly the reference to the reduction which includes an element for rent, which is not included in the Bill? Here the Bill seems to differ from the scheme and differ from what we are proposing in the Amendment.

The Lord Advocate: This was canvassed in Committee, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will remember. I endeavoured to explain in the course of the Committee proceedings that because the financial arrangements in this scheme were different from the legal aid scheme, insofar as liability to make a contribution, for example, did not arise as early in this scheme as it would in the legal aid scheme, the overall effect was to bring the two schemes into line. I accept that there is a reference to an element of rent in the report to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, but the financial structure of this scheme has been carefully examined and prepared. As I said, the overall effect is to bring eligibility for legal advice and assistance under the scheme broadly into line with eligibility for legal aid under the principal scheme.
Our view—and I accept that the hon. and learned Gentleman puts the opposite view—is that insofar as there was no variation at all, and one can never get it exact if one is trying to operate this on a simple basis, the alternative is to go to the elaborate structure of the legal aid scheme. One can never get mathematical exactness. In so far as there is any variation between the two, our view is that it would be desirable that the advice and assistance scheme should be slightly more stringent than the legal aid scheme. I believe that if somebody is going to give assistance in the nature of legal aid it is advisable that it should be carried right through. The hon. and learned Gentleman tended to take the opposite view and expressed the view that this scheme should be more generous on eligibility than the legal aid scheme. That is a question of impression and there is very little in it indeed.
On the other matter which the hon. Member for Norwood raised, the capital


assets of the scheme, the hon. Gentleman has in Amendment No. 4 altered the basis on which the value of a house is taken into account. This scheme and the legal aid scheme would completely part company if the Amendment were accepted. I can understand the degree of validity in the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has adduced, that in some instances it would be easier to assess the contribution of the capital value of a house under his proposal than on an estimate made by the client. If we are proposing to keep these two schemes in line it would not be appropriate to have one basis of calculation, annual value in this case, for advice and assistance, and capital value for the principal scheme.
I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said. The advisory committee which is looking into these matters has a continuing remit, and I can give the undertaking that his proposal, which is embodied in Amendment No. 4, will be drawn to the attention of the advisory committee. It will be invited to consider it on the basis that it should be applied if the change is to be made in both schemes. There is some merit in the proposal, and it will be drawn to the attention of the advisory committee.
I mentioned in Committee that the advisory committee was in the process of investigating the capital element in the legal aid scheme. I am now able to say that that Committee has made its report to the Lord Chancellor. The report was submitted only last week, and it has to be considered. There has not been time to consider it in sufficient detail to make any positive recommendations.

8.45 p.m.

I will tell the House the effect of the advisory committee's recommendations as they stand. The committee has suggested that in the legal aid scheme the figure of £125, referred to in Clause 1(b), should be raised to £325. That is in line with the capital disregards presently operating in the supplementary benefit system.

I did not know that the committee was to make this recommendation when, at col. 41, I said:
There may be an argument for bringing this into line with the supplementary benefits, where the first £325 is disregarded."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,Standing Committee A,20th April, 1972; c. 41.]

That is what the advisory committee has, in fact, recommended on this matter. It may be that that recommendation will be accepted. If so, the necessary changes in both schemes can, and will, be made by regulation.

The House may also be interested in the views of the advisory committee on the value of property. Its recommendation is that the £5,000 figure which pertains now should be increased to £7,500 in the light of changes. On the interesting point embodied in Amendment No. 4, I have given the House an undertaking that that approach to the assessment of the value of house property, when assessing means for legal aid and legal advice, will be drawn to the attention of the advisory committee. If the committee made a recommendation that the whole basis of calculation regarding house property should be altered in this way, it could be done for both schemes by regulation.

In the light of that information, I hope that the hon. Member for Norwood may feel disposed to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I was not a member of the Committee which discussed the Bill, but I read the debates with interest.
It is a pity that the Lord Advocate and those advising him are unable to accept the Amendments. I believe that it is highly desirable to keep the scheme simple—after all, we are dealing with the £25 scheme—and in line with the principal legal aid scheme. The principal scheme leaves much to be desired in an inflationary society. This is really what the Bill is all about.
I believe that the element of rent which is included in the Bill should be replaced by the suggestion made in the Amendment. The assessment of the value of a house by relation to its rateable value is so much better than any arbitrary figure such as £5,000 or £7,500 now suggested by the advisory committee.
I note what the Lord Advocate said about the matter being put right by regulation, if necessary. However, it is highly desirable that something should be done urgently. For example, why should a person in the London area whose house may be worth £9,000 be at a disadvantage with a person living in my area,


where house values are smaller, whose house may be assessed at £3,000? It is still the house in which he lives. Therefore, it seems wrong that this kind of arbitrary figure should be taken as a guide.
I do not know whether any assessment has been made of what it would cost in computing income to allow the totality of the rent to be set against income and to allow the totality of the occupation of one's house to be disregarded in assessing capital value. I suspect that it would cost the State nothing. It is therefore regrettable that the Amendments should not have been accepted.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I endorse what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who represents the Liberal Party in this debate, and in particular what he said about not waiting for regulations. Even if our Amendments are not acceptable for technical reasons—I acknowledge that the wording may need scrutiny—there is another place, and, so we understand, it will have to sit quite late into the summer dealing with the matters which we shall send to it. There seems no reason why, by the time the Bill reaches the other place, these matters should not have been dealt with by the advisory committee or why the outcome of any further scrutiny it may make of what we say in these debates should not be embodied in the Bill itself rather than in regulations. It is not satisfactory to put into an Act of Parliament a basis on which these matters will be worked out and then, perhaps within a month or two, alter it by regulation.
That point applies especially to the question of capital. The observations of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery have great force in this connection. A single capital sum is referred to, yet there are enormous variations in house values between one part of the country and another, so that one is, in effect, adopting a totally different test in, say, Tyneside from the one adopted in London.
In reply to my intervention, the Lord Advocate did not address his mind entirely to my question about how the figures and the method adopted in the Bill compare not with the legal aid system but with the proposals in the advisory

committee's report. The advisory committee was the author of the proposition that we should have a simplified system, which solicitors would work out and which, therefore, should not be as complicated as the method chosen for the legal aid scheme under which the Supplementary Benefits Commission has the task of working out the figures.
It was an inherent part of the advisory committee's scheme that there should be a deduction which would include an element for rent. As I understand it. that has not been carried into the Bill. We have entirely different figures—E15 in the advisory committee's report instead of £20, and £8 instead of £11. I was seeking to find out how those figures compare with what appears in the Bill.
Is the figure of £15, after deductions, including an element for rent, comparable with the £20? Has there been an up-rating of the £15? What was the figure of deduction for rent? Was it £3 or something like that? Similarly, as regards the net weekly income of £8 referred to in the report at which contributions would stop, has there been an up-rating to £11? In other words, do the figures in the Bill reflect the fall in the value of money since the advisory committee's report was issued, and in these respects has the Bill acknowledged that fall and adjusted the figures accordingly? It would be helpful in relation not only to this discussion but to future discussions if the Lord Advocate could answer that point.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I listened to the Lord Advocate with great interest, but I cannot help feeling—and I say this with no disrespect—that it is difficult for a member of the Bar, perhaps particularly a member of the Scottish Bar, to understand what goes on within working-class practices run by solicitors in London, Manchester, Birmingham and other big cities who have to grapple daily with the difficulties imposed on ordinary people by the stringent limits of eligibility which apply to legal aid.
I shall not deal with the complex statistical arguments adduced tonight. Suffice it to say that, speaking from my experience as a partner in a firm of solicitors in a working-class area, we shall find within a very short time that


because of the stringent limits imposed by the Bill the scheme, which originated with the most optimistic forecasts, will run into the ground very rapidly.
If we disregard the payments of rent which a man must take on the disposable limits prescribed in the Bill, with rapidly increasing rents the situation will become quite farcical. It is folly to disregard the likely effects of the Housing Finance Bill in this connection. That Bill is supposed to be enacted by October. There can be no denying that rents will substantially increase as a direct result of it. I do not propose to argue that legislation now; it would not be in order. But I think it is in order to comment on that fact in relation to the argument lying behind the Amendment.
Nothing said by the Lord Advocate has persuaded me to the belief that all will be well, that we can look upon the scheme with bright optimism and that many people will be eligible. In a sense, he let the cat out of the bag when he said that the Government considered that the £25 scheme should be more stringent from the point of view of eligibility than the principal scheme. We take a totally different view, based upon extremely good evidence, the most persuasive evidence—namely, the evidence of the advisory committee—that the purpose of this scheme is to obviate litigation and to enable people to seek advice and assistance at the earliest possible moment so that it will not be necessary for people to go to court and the burden, not only on the individual but necessarily on the State, resulting from the operation of the legislation will be less onerous. But if we cut down on the eligibility provision available under the £25 scheme we shall deny that fundamental concept. That would be to misunderstand the whole purpose of the original scheme as adumbrated in 1967 and 1968.
Although I fear that this will not happen, I should like the Lord Advocate to be a little more flexible, to appreciate that our arguments have force, based upon experience of the advice scheme as it has operated and on the principal Act, and to recognise that the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) about the value of properties when it comes

to capital eligibility has tremendous force. The Lord Advocate should be much less rigid. I hope that when the Bill reaches another place some reforms will be enacted.

9.0 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: The figures in the advisory committee's report have been upgraded in order to allow for the change in the value of money since that report was made. But rent has been excluded in the calculation in order to try to keep the financial arrangements of the scheme in line with the legal aid scheme.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) made a point which was made on more than one occasion in Committee, namely, that the legal aid scheme leaves something to be desired. It is not perfect and no one would suggest that it was. I can only give the hon. and learned Gentleman the answer which I gave those who raised the matter in Committee; that the proper way to go about solving the problem is to alter the legal aid scheme, if it has to be altered, and the advice and assistance scheme would then come into line.
This scheme is fundamentally intended to fill a gap in the legal aid scheme. The aim has been to confine the operation of the scheme to the gap in the principal legal aid scheme and to keep it financially in line with the principal scheme.
I will say a word on the effect of the scheme financially in relation to the legal aid scheme. Recognising that we have cut down on the disregards to achieve a simpler operation, a compensating factor has been built into the financial structure of the scheme. I can perhaps illustrate that by giving two examples which were given in Committee as reported at column 18 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. The level of disposable income below which no contribution would be required is £572 a year—that is £11 a week—whereas under the legal aid scheme it is £300. So the liability to start contributing arises only at a much later stage. The £20 a week which is the upper limit of the scheme is £1,040 a year, as against an upper limit of £950 under the legal aid scheme.
I am not suggesting that these balancing factors produce an exact result. What


I am suggesting is that, looked at broadly, the effect of those calculations and the figures in the Schedule and in Clause 1 is to enable the legal advice and assistance scheme to proceed, broadly speaking, on the same financial test as the principal scheme. If we were to accept rent as a further deduction in the calculation, it would be mean altering the whole set of figures because the scheme would be more readily available than the legal aid scheme itself. Some hon. Members would like to see that done, but as a matter of policy it has always been the intention that the two schemes should rank pari passu.

Amendment negatived.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 12, leave out 'and (b)' and insert:
'or
(b) he is (directly or indirectly) in receipt of supplementary benefit under the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966 or of family income supplement under the Family Income Supplements Act 1970,
and (in either case)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be for the convenience of the Committee to take with Amendment No. 3 the following Amendments:

Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 14, at end insert:
(c) he is in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement.

Amendment No. 15, in page 4, line 34, at end insert:
Provided that if the client is in receipt of supplementary benefit or of family income supplement he shall not be required to pay any charge or fee.

Amendment No. 16, in line 35, at end insert:
'and he is not (directly or indirectly) in receipt of supplementary benefit under the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966 or of family income supplement under the Family Income Supplements Act 1970'.

Amendment No. 19, in page 7, line 14, at end insert:
'power to make provision as to the cases in which a person is for the purposes of this Part of this Act to be taken to be (directly or indirectly) in receipt of supplementary benefit under the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966 or of family income supplement under the Family Income Supplements Act 1970, and also to include'.

The Lord Advocate: Amendments Nos. 3, 16 and 19 are Government Amendments, and their object is to give the recipient of supplementary benefit or of family income supplement what has been described in Committee and elsewhere as a passport to legal advice and assistance under the scheme, unless his capital exceeds the capital limitations imposed by the scheme.
The Amendments are prompted by the recommendation of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) in Committee:
I think it extremely unlikely that any person in receipt of supplementary benefit would have to make a contribution under the Bill as drafted. If so, surely the correct thing to do is to save the time and expense, and not require any assessment of the means of that applicant at all when he presents his Social Security Book."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,Standing Committee A, 20th April, 1972; c. 8.]
Later in the proceedings I said:
I should like to consider carefully whether we could embody in this legislation the kind of proposition which was made by the hon. Gentleman. There are obvious administrative advantages in being able to produce evidence of receipt of family income supplement or supplementary benefit, thereby automatically qualifying for assistance under the scheme.
I added this qualification:
It would have to be qualified by the possession of capital."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,Standing Committee A,20th April, 1972; c. 24.]
That undertaking is honoured by the three Amendments.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 15 in one sense fall short of the Government Amendments and in another sense go beyond them. They fall short in so far as Amendment No. 5 is drafted to confine the benefit to the applicant who is in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement. I understand that normally family income supplement is paid to the wife. I am sure that this restriction was not intended, but it is not embodied in the Government Amendments, which are drawn in wider terms.
The Opposition Amendments go wider than the Government Amendments in so far as the passport would extend to someone with capital. I have mentioned the recommendations of the advisory committee on the question of capital. I have all along maintained and indicated that it would not be possible to disregard


the capital element. I have honoured the undertaking I made in Committee to look at the question of the passport scheme as such, and these Amendments embody the much simplified procedure. I think the legislation benefits from the changes, and I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for raising these points.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: We are grateful to the Lord Advocate for having honoured his promise to look at the proposal made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), who said that the object of the scheme in making the test of income simple for the solicitor would be furthered if what has been described as the passport of receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement were incorporated into the Bill. The Government Amendment goes rather further than ours, or at any rate may, subject to regulations, go further than ours, and that is to be welcomed.
It would be of assistance to the House if the Lord Advocate were able to give a little further explanation of what is intended by the words "directly or indirectly". What sort of case is it intended to encompass by the regulations which I gather will define how those words shall operate? We hope that they will be given as wide an interpretation as possible.
The Lord Advocate has correctly said that under the Bill as it stands the Government Amendment falls short of ours in that it leaves the capital limit, notwithstanding the passport provision, at a lower figure than the capital limit for the purposes of supplementary benefit. The Lord Advocate will recognise that that is an anomaly and a complicating factor which strengthens the case for the Government going at least as far as the advisory committee has proposed in relation to capital limits which we dealt with in the preceding Amendment.
With that question and that one qualification I welcome the Government-Amendment, and see no reason to pursue ours.

The Lord Advocate: The words "directly or indirectly" are intended to cover the situation where the applicant is the husband and the wife is the person who is in receipt of supplementary benefit.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE TO WHICH S. 1 APPLIES

Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 19, leave out from "on" to "any" in line 1, page 2, and insert:
the law relating to or the legal implications of".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we are to take Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 9, leave out from "to" to "those" in line 10.

Mr. Davis: In Committee the Lord Advocate intimated that he would be looking at this matter afresh in the light of argument which we adduced then. The burden of our argument was that the Bill was unnecessarily restrictive in that it enabled assistance and advice to be provided only in so far as English or Scots law was concerned where in the latter case the advice was given in Scotland. It seemed to us that many instances could arise in general practice when it would be necessary to extend this provision.
Reference was made in Committee to the absurdity of the situation which would arise if advise were sought from a solicitor in Carlisle and it was impossible for him to give any advice, or, indeed, to seek any from a Scottish lawyer, relating to Scots law. Equally, if he were to go over the border the client would find that the Scottish lawyer would Le similarly placed. That is obviously an absurdity.
9.15 p.m.
This seemed to me to be a matter of considerable importance affecting many people, and particularly those who come from the West Indies, India or Pakistan and want to receive advice on matters affecting the law in their countries, for this would be one way by which advice given at an early stage could obviate litigation later.
I argued in Committee that there had been numerous instances which I had experienced where, for example, a West Indian client had sought advice about a probate matter or land problem in his country and where it was perfectly compatible within the terms of this scheme


for a solicitor to be able to instruct a lawyer in, say, Jamaica to advise in a limited way and possibly, as a result, avoid litigation later, and certainly avoid a good deal of anxiety on the part of the client. I suggest that this is the experience of many solicitors, particularly those working in large immigrant communities, and the advice that is obtainable from lawyers abroad need not be expensive.
There is no suggestion here that an English lawyer should advise on foreign law or even on Scots law. It would be absurd if an English lawyer were to take it upon himself to go outside his own knowledge and advise a client on matters about which he knew very little. He would, of course, be opening himself up to actions for negligence were he to do so, and as a matter of practicability that situation would not arise.
If a client came into one's office with the sort of problem to which I have referred the English solicitor would be able to refer the matter to a lawyer in the foreign country concerned. He would be able to advise him that his client was operating within the limits of the legal advice scheme, and I am certain that the foreign lawyer would recognise the financial implications involved and charge a smaller fee than would otherwise be the case.
This is, therefore, an important Amendment which could affect a large number of people. The present restrictive character of the Bill in this context seems to run counter to the report of the advisory committee, which has throughout urged that litigation should be avoided and that advice should be taken at an early stage. The Amendment is, therefore, very much in line with that thinking.
The Lord Advocate said in Committee that the £25 scheme was not intended to cover highly special cases. I think he misunderstood—later he seemed to recognise that he had misunderstood—what we were seeking to do, which was to deal not with highly special cases but with ordinary issues affecting ordinary people, and we pointed out that they could be dealt with easily by advice from a foreign lawyer at an early stage.
As the Lord Advocate said in Committee that he would investigate this

matter afresh, we are disappointed that he has not thought it appropriate to table any Amendments of his own on this matter. I hope that that does not mean that this is the last word as far as he is concerned on this subject. I hope that he has been impressed by any research that he may have done or by advice that he may have taken from the Law Society. Indeed, I would be interested to know what advice he has received from the Law Society of England and perhaps from the Law Society of Scotland on this issue. What I can tell him is that, from discussions I have had with them, many other practitioners are very much persuaded by the view we have expressed in Committee and which I am expressing tonight on behalf of the Opposition.

Mr. Hooson: I support the Amendment on a very simple ground. Nothing that we do by way of Amendment or otherwise in the list of Amendments before us can possibly change the scheme from being a simple £25 scheme. That is what we are talking about. Unless the Government have a substantial intention of being restrictive in this matter, the words in the Clause are unnecessarily restrictive. I do not think that they will affect adversely a large number of people, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis). What they may do—it is unnecessary for them to do so—is to affect a relatively small number of people, but unfairly.
There are members of the Bar in this country, including a couple in my chambers, and solicitors who have qualified in other countries as well, and they are able and willing to give advice on simple matters coming within the ambit of the scheme. That advice should be available.
The form of words suggested by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central would give much greater scope to the Bill. For the purposes of the Bill, it is unnecessary to have any restrictive words. If it is unnecessary to have restrictive words, why have them?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) was very persuasive in the course of the debate on this matter in Committee, as he was in all the debates in which he took part. I undertook to look


at this matter and I did so. What impressed me at the time was that I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that this is the kind of thing which could easily be done within the £25 scheme. He was speaking from some experience. I have read what he said and he was rather more cagey than I thought he was at the time.
In Committee I paid the hon. Gentleman a compliment by saying
It is helpful to have on the Committee a practising solicitor with experience in these matters.
I asked the hon. Gentleman:
Is it his experience that that advice is obtained within the limit of £25?
I thought he gave an affirmative answer at the time, but what he said was
It could be. I have in my mind cases touching the matters to which I have alluded, and land problems in the West Indies.
Later the hon. Gentleman said:
One can get an opinion at relatively small cost, well within, I believe, the limit of the £25 scheme.
That is the whole point. If one were to accept an Amendment of this kind, it would have to be on the basis that the advice on the kind of problems which arise could readily be obtained within the ambit of the scheme. As the hon. Member rightly pointed out, no solicitor would wisely express a view on foreign law. From that point of view, Scottish law to an English lawyer is foreign law, as English law is foreign to me. No one would readily give advice on those matters. I should have thought that he would be rather ill advised to do so. What would inevitably be involved would be an application to a qualified lawyer in the country the law of which was in question. The solicitor would have to get in touch with a lawyer of the country concerned, and agree, presumably, to pay his fee, and would have to pass on, as it were, the advice he received.
My advice on this matter is that this is an expensive operation. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central, who made this kind of point more than once in Committee, would agree that the legal charges of this country compare very favourably with those in many other countries, particularly the United States and certain European countries. My information is that one could not expect

this kind of service to be performed within the ambit of the £25 scheme.
There is a deeper objection than that. As appears from c. 61 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee proceedings, I indicated that although I agreed to examine the question I had serious doubts about it. I said:
I give that undertaking, though I would not like it to be thought that I am giving any undertaking to make a change because, on the advice given to me, my feeling is that it would go beyond the scope of the scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 25th April, 1972; c. 60–1.]
It would go far beyond the scope of this scheme and of the legal aid scheme.
The advice which is contemplated here is advice on the law in England and Wales or in Scotland, as the case may be, on the day-to-day problems that arise, not problems arising on land tenure in the West Indies or elsewhere, although I accept that in this day and age there may be more of those problems arising than perhaps there were 20 or 25 years ago. The whole purpose of the scheme is to give advice on English law or Scottish law, as the case may be, on the day-to-day problems that arise.
I have considered this and thought about it. I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment because, apart from the practicalities and the question of the extent to which a £25 scheme could bite on a problem of this nature, this would go far beyond what the principal scheme ever envisaged and certainly beyond what this scheme envisages. I do not think there was any suggestion in the report of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee that this was the kind of problem envisaged. For these reasons, I must advise the House not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I have three questions for the Lord Advocate. First, following up the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), is not the Lord Advocate aware that there are lawyers practising here who are qualified in a foreign country as well and who would, therefore, be able to give advice under the scheme?
Second, does not the Lord Advocate recognise that when it comes to the question whether advice is likely to be


expensive, every lawyer wishing to secure such advice writes to a firm of solicitors abroad saying "This is the nature of the advice we want. How much is it likely to cost?" Therefore, the firm of solicitors will know whether the advice is likely to come within the £25 scheme and the burden would be on the solicitor to justify the position. Does not that invalidate the Lord Advocate's argument?
Third, on the Lord Advocate's argument about day-to-day problems, does he not recognise that matrimonial problems and questions of custody are day-to-day problems and can impinge upon elements of foreign law? Should not these matters be seriously taken into consideration?

The Lord Advocate: I have considered this from all angles. I accept that there probably are a number of solicitors practising in London who are qualified lawyers in a jurisdiction other than our own. In the light of the discussion I have had and the consideration that has been given to this matter, I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment, although I should have been very willing to have advised the House to the contrary if I had felt that there was something in it.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: In the course of the discussions which the Lord Advocate has had, has he given consideration in particular to the provisions of the Civil Evidence Bill which is now going through Parliament and which is designed, amongst other things, to simplify the whole procedure of obtaining evidence in foreign law and to make it a great deal cheaper? Does not that affect what the Lord Advocate has said?

The Lord Advocate: If it is a question of evidence about foreign law, where proceedings in this country are concerned the legal aid scheme covers that and would embrace the obtaining of evidence abroad in that context.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: As I understand it, the whole basis of the new procedure which will operate if the Civil Evidence Bill becomes law is that it will not be necessary, as it has been in the past, to go to a lawyer practising in the country concerned. It will be sufficient to take the

advice of a lawyer whom the court regards as qualified. That will inevitably mean that when one seeks initial advice for the purposes of deciding whether one has a case, for example, on questions of the marriage law of the country in which one's client was married; this is very often a vital factor in the question of advice—one will be able to go to someone who is not a practising lawyer in the country concerned to get that initial advice just as one would be able to make use of somebody of the same kind to give evidence in court, and that sort of person would not charge the kind of fees that practising lawyers from the country concerned would charge.
It seems now that the point the Lord Advocate was making earlier about higher charges in other countries is not necessarily valid. One would have thought that it becomes even less valid when one realises, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself said in Committee, that the incorporation of Community law into the law of both England and Scotland will mean that within the compass of the £25 scheme will come the whole of Community law. If his point is that one is unlikely to be able to get advice within the £25 scheme on matters of foreign law, one would certainly have thought that it applied with very much greater force to matters of Community law.

The Lord Advocate: Surely that cannot be right, because Community law is a code of law with which lawyers in this country will become increasingly familiar, as the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree.

Amendment negatived.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 13, at end insert:
'whether the assistance is given by taking any such steps on his behalf or by assisting him in taking them on his own behalf'.
During the Committee stage I undertook to give careful consideration to Clause 2(1)(a) and (b), particularly in response to invitations from the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), and if necessary to amend the subsection to spell out the wide application that was intended. I think that was covered by what is reported at column


123 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Amendment which I now move is intended to make perfectly clear the wide effect of these statutory provisions. I think they are self-explanatory. Unless the hon. and learned Member or his hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) wishes otherwise, I shall confine myself simply to moving the Amendment. It is intended to clarify the effect of Clause 2.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am most grateful to the Lord Advocate for responding to the invitation that we gave him in Committee to clarify wording we found obscure. We ought not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but at the moment I am not relieved of the obscurity which I found on that occasion.
I would refer the Lord Advocate to his explanation at column 78 of what was meant by the wording in subsection (1)(b) when he was dealing with Amendment No. 8. The Amendment sought to insert into the subsection the words
Submission, application, appeal or presentation of evidence in pending or contemplated",
and so on, in order to clarify what was meant by the paragraph. Paragraph (b) is the paragraph under which not only oral or written advice but also assistance can be given. The Lord Advocate said that the Amendment was unnecessary
because all the items contained in it relate to steps which that person might appropriately take by way of bringing or defending any proceedings. That is precisely what Clause 2(I)(b) relates to.
He then read the wording of paragraph (b) and said:
One could set out about two pages of examples of what would be covered in this way, but one always seeks to proceed by general propositions,…
Clearly, he was telling the Committee that
bringing or defending any proceedings
as not to be narrowly interpreted but meant all the various things we had referred to in our Amendment and many more. Then I asked him:
In view of what the Lord Advocate has said, is it the Government's intention that paragraph (b) should cover the circumstances which obtain when proceedings are contemplated and, if so, do the Government consider that the form of words used covers that situation?

He replied:
The form of words used is deliberately very wide. That is the significance of the words or otherwise' in line 4.… With the two exceptions I have mentioned, the line is drawn at the borderline of the solicitor himself taking steps as distinct from giving advice or assistance on the steps that can be taken."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 25th April, 1972; c. 78–9.]
Now, with this Amendment, which applies to paragraph (b), we have the insertion of the words by way of definition of the term 'assistance'
whether the assistance is given by taking any such steps on his behalf or by assisting him in taking them on his own behalf
so the borderline to which the Lord Advocate referred would appear on the face of it to have gone.
But then we come to subsection (3). which provides that Clause 1
does not apply to any assistance given to a person by taking on his behalf any step in the institution or conduct of any proceedings before a court or tribunal
The phrase
…any step in the institution or conduct of any proceedings
would seem to cover the examples which the Lord Advocate gave the Committee when he was defining what was meant in paragraph (b) by
as to any steps which that person might appropriately take
by amongst other things, bringing or defending any proceedings. It does not apply—I return to subsection (3)—to any assistance given to a person by
taking on his behalf any step in the institution or conduct of any proceedings before a court or tribunal
and so on, except
in the case of civil proceedings before a court or tribunal, any step which consists only of negotiating on his behalf with a view to a settlement of a claim.
Then paragraph (b) does not affect this matter.
Therefore, certainly on a quick look at the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment, it would seem that it is giving under subsection (1) what is then taken away under subsection (3), and the borderline to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred in Committee now finds a place somewhere in the vacuum, the exact position of which I am no longer able to ascertain.
It would be helpful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would explain how these various parts of the Clause are now to be related to one another, and even more helpful if he would tell the House what precisely a solicitor and counsel will now be able to do, having regard to the joint effect of his Amendment and subsection (3).

The Lord Advocate: I am sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman still feels confused, because one would want an eminent Queen's Counsel of his standing to be clear on what Parliament is seeking to enact.
I said at a later stage of the Committee proceedings:
I have already made the point that the subsection, and particularly paragraph (b), is intended to be in the widest possible terms, subject to the limit of the assistance which can he given—the limit of £25, with certain exceptions. But when we come to contentious business, to proceedings, the scope of the scheme is drastically cut down."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 2nd May, 1972; c. 144.]
As I look at the structure of the Clause, with its three subsections, I read subsection (1) as setting out a general and very wide proposition relating to advice and assistance. It is in the widest possible terms, and to avoid any doubt the Amendment emphasises the width of the scope of the subsection.
When we come to subsection (2) we find that the scope of the Clause is cut down in this respect, that subsection (1), wide as it is, does not apply to advice or assistance given in circumstances where legal aid is in force. In other words, there should be no overlap between the two schemes. Once a legal aid certificate has been obtained, the assisted person proceeds under legal aid.
Subsection (3) cuts down the scope of the Clause by saying that it
does not apply to any assistance given to a person by taking on his behalf any step in the institution or conduct of any proceedings before a court or tribunal, or of any proceedings in connection with a statutory inquiry".
Then we come to two exceptions to that general proposition. Negotiating a settlement would, I suppose, be regarded as a step taken on behalf of someone in the course of proceedings.
Subsection (4) relates to rather special circumstances. The subsection contains

a specific provision for representation in circumstances set out in it.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he had not had time to consider this matter fully. If he is still worried about the structure of the Clause—it is a crucial Clause and must be right—I would be grateful if he would get in touch with me after these proceedings and we will have another look at it. I am advised that it clarifies the situation, but if he is still in doubt I would not like the Bill to pass through the House without the matter being cleared up beyond all doubt. Perhaps on that basis he might be prepared to accept the Amendment with the caveat that we may have to look at it again.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am grateful for that invitation. I am always delighted to have a chat with the Lord Advocate, whether behind the Speaker's Chair or elsewhere. My difficulty concerning the words he emphasised in subsection (3):
does not apply to any assistance given to a person by taking on his behalf any step"—
and the words added in his Amendment:
whether the assistance is given by taking any such steps on his behalf".
At the moment I do not follow how they tie up with one another but I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to explain that to me either behind the Chair or in some more salubrious place.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 43 leave out 'and' and insert:
'or given in accordance with a proposal which is made by the solicitor and approved by the court and which (in either case)'.
This, too, is an Amendment which seeks to implement an undertaking given during the fourth sitting of the Standing Committee. The Committee considered an Amendment in similar terms, and I said then:
Since I first saw Amendment No. 21, I thought there was something in it, and I should like the opportunity to go into the necessary detail and discussion about it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 2nd May, 1972; c. 162.]
The effect of this Amendment makes it clear that a solicitor himself can propose


to the court that he should represent a party to the proceedings before a magistrates' court or a county court and seek the court's approval for his doing so. As the Bill stands, an invitation to him to do so would have to come from the court and on consideration we thought that it might assist the court in certain circumstances if the application could come from the solicitor himself. I am grateful to the Opposition for this suggestion in Committee, and I believe that the Amendment fulfils the undertaking I gave.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: On this occasion we are delighted to look the gift horse in the mouth, and it seems a healthy horse with a healthy mouth.
The purpose of our proposal, which has now been given effect to in rather shorter and simpler language than our Amendment in Committee, was in particular to give assistance to the growing number of local legal centres, to which people in areas which are in particular bereft of solicitors are turning more and more frequently. It was to enable the solicitors who will be working at the centres to go to court with the litigant, whether it be magistrate's court or county court, and inform the court that the litigant is represented by a solicitor from the centre and suggest that the right of representation under this Clause should be given to him.
The Amendment will fill a gap which it was necessary to enable these centres most effectively to fill. We are extremely glad that the Government have, in this way at any rate, accepted the value of the centres and what they are doing and are giving them this assistance. But we may have to come later to other aspects of the work of the centres.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 2, line 44, after 'made', insert 'or approved'.

No. 13, in page 3, line 1, after 'made', insert 'or approved'.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Clause 3

FINANCIAL LIMIT ON PROSPECTIVE COST OF ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE

Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 3, line 39, after 'to', insert:
'exclude the first £15 of, but otherwise to
After we had put down this Amendment it became evident that there was a drafting defect in that it also took in paragraph (b) which was not intended. The Amendment is intended to relate only to the first part of the Clause.
The object of the Amendment is to exclude the first £15 which may be incurred in respect of disbursements. As the Lord Advocate will recall, this argument was canvassed in Committee. The principal argument we adduced then and which we adduce now is that the £25 scheme, as against when it was first enunciated in 1968, has already been eroded by inflation. The Amendment represents one way of mitigating the difficulties that are necessarily experienced as soon as we embark upon the scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) and I argued in Committee that there were many cases when it was essential to obtain expert advice, thereby incurring expenses almost at the outset of a case before it was litigated upon, possibly with the object of obtaining legal aid or, secondly, with the object of negotiating a settlement. The sort of expenses we had in mind were those relating to a doctor's report. One knows that some years ago on 1968, when the scheme was first adumbrated, doctors quite rightly did not charge for reports what they are charging today. One now finds that a general practitioner's report in an accident case rarely costs less than £5·25, or five guineas as we still like to call it. Often, and quite justifiably so, it may be as much as £10.
It is also necessary to obtain at an early stage—this does not always happen and it is regrettable that it does not—in a factory accident case, for example, the opinion of an engineering consultant. Generally speaking the fees are quite high, but I think many engineering consultants would be prepared to recognise that they were working within a £25 legal


advice scheme and would adjust their fees accordingly.
In many instances it is necessary to obtain those reports not only to obtain legal aid but also to ensure that a preliminary view is taken before an employer, in some instances for perfectly good reasons or in other instances for devious reasons, begins to interfere with or remove the machine which has been the subject matter of the accident. One knows from ordinary practice that most litigants, working people, are simply unable to afford those expenses.
There is always a delay before one gets legal aid. It may be three or six months, or even longer. Therefore, one necessarily runs the appalling risk that the subject matter of the litigation which ultimately ensues is no longer there or has been interfered with. That causes considerable prejudice to the position of the proposed plaintiff. Therefore, there is a strong reason for being able to incur limited disbursements of this character. It is also essential if one is to negotiate meaningfully to try to obtain a settlement. As I said earlier this evening, this is what the scheme is all about. It is not to encourage litigation it is to avoid it. It is to encourage settlements. Any measures which deter solicitors from embarking upon that course should be rejected.
In Committee the Lord Advocate advanced a number of arguments against these propositions. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) and I had a little game in Committee defining the kind of arguments that the Lord Advocate advanced from time to time. It is not only the Lord Advocate, but successive Law Officers and, indeed, all representatives of Governments—I am not seeking to make a party point—who seek to adduce such arguments.
My hon. and learned Friend. referred to the "time is not yet" argument and the Godot argument. I suppose that it what this is all about. Then there was the floodgates argument—the sewage argument as my hon. and learned Friend defined it. We had the vehicle argument—that it ought to be done in a different Bill. I do not suppose that that will be argued today. There was then the argument that because this was called the

£25 scheme—I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously suggested this—it would be folly to encourage anything which might make it a £35 or a £40 scheme. That I defined as the nomenclature argument.

Mr. Peter Archer: The Scrooge argument.

Mr. Davis: I am sorry. The Scrooge argument. That argument has no basis at all.
It is important that we should seek to operate the scheme from the beginning in a way which is to the advantage of the proposed litigant regarding the possibility of a settlement and of his applying successfully for legal aid.
I cannot believe that to accept the Amendment will invalidate the scheme or that it will impose an absurd burden upon the Exchequer. Nothing of the kind will occur. If the Lord Advocate accepts the Amendment it will make the scheme meaningful, it will make it work. and it will lessen the risk. which would necessarily arise if we accept the scheme as it is, of its breaking down and the Government having to do something. They will probably say "We will do something about it at that stage." That is not the right approach.
I think the Lord Advocate will turn us down again, because he has his head down in his notes, and that is always an ominous sign. However, I hope—I have said this three times and been unsuccessful on each occasion—the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be a little less rigid tonight.

The Lord Advocate: I was not looking at my notes at that moment. I was reading what had been said in Committee.
The Amendment, ingenious as it is, is in substance an argument which was adduced at an earlier stage in our proceedings. In effect, the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) wants to increase the scope of the scheme from £25 to £40. When that specific Amendment was moved in Committee I said that the hon. Gentleman might be right that it might be that the scheme, to operate satisfactorily, would have to be at a figure of £40, £45, or perhaps £35. We just do not know. I said that this


was the scheme which had been recommended. When the figure of £25 was suggested by the advisory committee, it was purely speculative. The figure of £40 is also purely speculative. We want to find out from experience what figure is most appropriate to the operation of this advice and assistance scheme. We have power to make changes by regulation when that figure has been assessed in the light of experience.
In Committee, on this point, I said:
We just do not know what the operation of the scheme will cost, and we do not know what the appropriate figure will be"—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,That the Legal Advice and Assistance Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Fox.]

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

The Lord Advocate: I went on to say:
It may be that £25 will prove to be too low. Experience will quickly tell whether it is, and if it is, we have power under Clause 11 to make the necessary regulations to change the figure, and the necessary change will be made."—(OFFICIAL REPORT.Standing Committee A,2nd May. 1972; c. 177.]

That was a definite undertaking. I ask the House to let the scheme get off the ground at £25. If experience shows that more is necessary to operate the scheme satisfactorily, as we should like it to operate, the necessary change will be made.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will accept that undertaking from me and now consider whether he might withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: We do not apologise for returning to this matter, since we regard it as of great importance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) said, the Amendment is defective, but what we seek to do is to ensure that, in addition to the £25 limit, there shall be a right to spend up to £15 in disbursements. In other words, it is not an automatic increase to £40, but an increase only where disbursements are incurred. Unhappily, the Amendment does not have that effect in terms, but that is the

spirit in which we invite the Lord Advocate to consider it.
There are two ways of approach which ought to be explored here. The Lord Advocate has given his undertaking in perfectly good faith, to see how the £25 limit goes and to review it if necessary, but there are indications already that the £25 will not be enough. My first approach to the matter is to turn to the report of the advisory committee, which proposed the £25 limit. In Appendix A one sees set out the limited amount of work to which that £25 limit was to apply. In paragraph 1(b),
The assistance he will be able to give will include:—preparing an application for legal aid; writing letters and negotiating on behalf of his clients; obtaining the opinion of counsel; drawing agreements for maintenance.
In subparagraph (c) it is said that the solicitor would be able to do certain other work,
Drawing other legal documents; work involving charges in excess of £25"—
but only with the prior approval of the area office in either case.
It is clear from the terms in which the Bill is now drawn that what will be permitted under the scheme goes far wider than the work referred to in subparagraph (b); it goes much more into the realm of sub-paragraph (c), and in some respects even beyond that, because all that is referred to in Appendix A appears to be the drawing up of documents and the giving of advice. This is a much wider matter, even under Clause 2(1), subject to the resolution of the ambiguity to which I drew attention earlier. But we have gone even further beyond the scope contemplated by the advisory committee because under subsection (4) the magistrate or judge may invite a solicitor to represent a litigant in proceedings before the court. That is one respect in which it is probable that the £25 contemplated by the advisory committee will not be enough.
The other factor is the change in the value of money since the advisory committee made its recommendations and particularly since the Law Society made the recommendation on which its report was founded. Earlier I asked whether the figures on page 14 of the appendix to the advisory committee's report, such as the figures for net weekly income and the figure at which no contribution should


be payable, had been up-rated because of the rise in the cost of living since the report was published. The Lord Advocate said that they had. He told us that certain figures which now apply to the legal aid scheme should be considerably up-rated—by as much as 50 per cent. in the case of capital. In addition there is the question of the effect of value added tax. Whether the £25 is intended to be net or gross of that tax I do not know. Perhaps the Lord Advocate does not know either, but if he does he will tell us.
All these factors make it clear that £25 in terms of the Bill will be quite different from £25 in terms of the recommendation of the Law Society or of the advisory committee. It does not make sense to say "We will stick to this figure in the Bill and then within a few months we will increase it by regulation." Surely it is far better to take stock of the situation now. It can be done between now and the time when the Bill is considered in another place, and if it is found, as I believe it will be, that £25 does not represent the expectation and understanding of those who put forward the scheme, the proper course will be to make the Amendment in the Bill rather than wait for regulations. I hope that the Lord Advocate will give an undertaking to consider that suggestion seriously and will not rest, as he has rested up to now, simply on the power to alter by regulation.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 4

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PERSONS RECEIVING ADVICE OR ASSISTANCE

Amendment made: No. 16, in page 4, line 35, at end insert:
'and he is not (directly or indirectly) in receipt of supplementary benefit under the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966 or of family income supplement under the Family Income Supplements Act 1970'.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Clause 5

PAYMENT OF CHARGES OR FEES OTHER WISE THAN THROUGH CLIENT'S CONTRIBUTION

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 5, line 30.
leave out from 'any' to 'which' in line 31 and insert:
'money or valuable security coming into the possession of the solicitor (other than a benefit payable by the State) and'.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient also to discuss Amendment No. 18, in page 5, line 32, leave out from 'matter' to end of line 35.

Mr. Fraser: The Bill as drafted incorporates in its structure the provisions which are in the main legal aid legislation about charges upon property recovered, being a first charge for the cost of the proceedings, negotiations or work done for the client. This has been grafted on to the Bill despite any recommendation to that effect by the advisory committee or the Law Society.
Under the Bill as drafted, if a solicitor recovers or preserves property
(of whatever nature and wherever situated)
that property is to be subject to a charge in favour of the solicitor for the balance of his fee up to a limit of £25 but after taking account of the contribution which the client will have made to the solicitor. I wish to give an example of how this provision will work.
Suppose that a solicitor accepts a case under the scheme. He charges £10 and he has to pay a disbursement of £5 and under the Schedule to the Bill his client pays him a contribution of £10. In other words, the solicitor's costs are covered by the contribution but he expends £5. Assume that the case he is conducting involves the recovery of a typewriter from a vendor which has been detained by the vendor on account of the cost of repairs and the purchaser of the typewriter is alleging that the repairs should be done free of charge because the purchaser has the benefit of a warranty under the Sale of Goods Act and the £5 disbursement is incurred for an expert's report to advise the client about whether his claim is justified.
Assume that the solicitor recovered the detained typewriter, the matter never went to court, there was no award of costs and the solicitor's costs are paid by the contribution but there is left £5 to pay to the mechanic or expert who examined the typewriter. In those circumstances it is wholly impracticable for the solicitor to have a charge on the typewriter to the extent of raising £5 to


pay the expert's fee. If that practice were pursued it would put the scheme into disrepute.
The Amendment proposes that the charge shall apply only to property which never comes into the possession of the solicitor, and even then only to money or valuable security. If the charge is to apply to property which never comes into the possession of the solicitor, the solicitor will forgo his fee, have to sue his client for the recovery of the property or enforce a charge upon it. That is wholly impractical.
Under the Amendment the charge would not apply to chattels or to assets which were not readily realisable—whether they be deeds of a house, an heirloom or a second-hand television set. The Amendment would remove practical difficulties about recovering contributions out of property. It would also exclude State benefits—redundancy payments, compensation for unfair dismissal, sickness and unemployment benefit and even maternity grants.
As reported at column 214 of the Committee proceedings, the Lord Advocate said that he contemplated making regulations to exclude certain State benefits. I hope that the third limb of the Amendment will commend itself to the Lord Advocate on those grounds. We are anxious that the scheme should be simple in operation, that it should have the support of the public and that it should remove the barrier, whether real or imaginary, which exists between some sections of the public and the legal profession.
If a solicitor is expected to raise a charge upon a television set, a typewriter or property which he recovers, and if he is intended to enforce that charge against his own client, particularly where the property has never come into his possession, and is not in the form of cash, a cheque or other valuable security, either he will take a loss or the scheme will be put into disrepute.
For reasons of practicality the Amendment should be seriously considered. If the wording is not right, I shall be glad to withdraw the Amendment and the matter can be considered in another place, but I am sure that the principle is right and that it will benefit the scheme.

10.15 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I would never reject an Amendment on the technical ground of drafting. The essential purpose of the Amendment is to exclude from the charge benefits payable by the State—the third limb of the Amendment which means a great deal to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser).
I said in Committee that I hoped to be able to say something more at this stage about the use which would be made of the regulation-making power which I sought and obtained in Committee and I put on record the following observations on exclusion from charge.
The regulations which will be made will exclude moneys payable under any maintenance or separation agreement or under any affiliation agreement. This follows the equivalent regulations under the legal aid scheme.
Secondly, moneys paid by way of supplementary benefit, unemployment or sickness benefit, industrial injury benefit and other benefits under the National Insurance Acts will also be excluded. All these benefits are at present inalienable by Statute, and it is obviously desirable to maintain that principle.
Thirdly, moneys recoverable in circumstances equivalent to those which were canvassed in the case to which the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) referred will also be excluded. The regulations will exclude from the incidence of the charge any capital assets which are excluded in determining disposable capital.
Payments in the industrial tribunals sphere—and I am thinking here of redundancy payments—

Mr. John Fraser: If items which are disregarded for capital purposes are to be left out of account, would goods like television sets and radiograms, which are part of the personal furniture and belongings of the applicant be excluded?

The Lord Advocate: Yes, I think so, but I would not like to be committed on That. I will write to the hon. Gentleman if there is any doubt about it.
There has not yet been time fully to consider the question of redundancy payments and payments recovered in respect of proceedings before an industrial tribunal for wrongful dismissal. What may


come out of our discussions is that an allowance of 50 per cent. should be made as being excluded from the charge, but, as I say, no final decision has been reached.
Those are the matters with which the hon. Gentleman was most concerned, but there are objections to the Amendment in so far as it narrows down considerably the property which could be subject to a charge in the sense that it could put the person who is in receipt of this type of assistance in a better position than an ordinary private litigant. To the extent that it does that it will not be acceptable.
In the light of what I have said on benefits, particularly supplementary benefit and unemployment and sickness benefit, and in the light of the undertakings I have given which will be implemented by the regulations, the hon. Gentleman may feel disposed to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. John Fraser: We find that reply encouraging, and we would like to ex-

amine its implications. As I understand it, this will extend to all the chattels which caused the Committee some concern. We reserve the right to consult our colleagues in another place if this provision is not satisfactory, but, subject to that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6

APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF LEGAL AID ACT

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 7, line 14, at end insert:
'power to make provision as to the cases in which a person is for the purposes of this Part of this Act to be taken to be (directly or indirectly) in receipt of supplementary benefit under the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966 or of family income supplement under the Family Income Supplements Act 1970, and also to include'.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Clause 7

EMPLOYMENT TO WHICH PART II APPLIES

Mr. Peter Archer: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 7, line 37 at end insert—
(d) of furnishing legal assistance to persons appearing before such tribunals as regulations provide.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) whispered a few moments ago that in the course of this evening's debate I had preserved more than my customary taciturnity. I hasten to assure the House that that does not reflect an absence of interest in these debates, but simply a hope that I might thereby assist the House in expediting its deliberations.
The Amendment—or at least the principle of it—was discussed at same length in Committee. We discussed the importance of assisted representation before tribunals and such related questions as whether it is normally desirable—quite apart from legal aid—to permit representations before tribunals, and the House may be relieved to hear that I do not propose to repeat those arguments.
I rehearsed at c. 88 of the Committee proceedings what seemed to me to be the principal arguments, and they were elaborated by some of my hon. Friends. I was somewhat surprised on reading the OFFICIAL REPORT afterwards to find that what had seemed to me when I was making it to be a brief and pithy speech had somehow extended when reported into several pages. It is an experience that has happened to me before. I do not propose to repeat the arguments, because I am certain that the Lord Advocate is capable of assimilating them on first hearing, and I have never been impressed by the criterion of the Bellman; "If I say it three times, it is true".
I do not think that I can be more persuasive tonight than previously on this aspect of the argument, but the Amendment embodies a rather narrower principle than the one discussed in Committee. It invites the Government to include the furnishing of representation before tribunals among the services provided through local legal organisations under Part II of the Bill, and it may be that this is a most promising

beginning to representation before tribunals. If we cannot have a crisp fresh loaf, we may have to settle for several slices.
We discussed in Committee the problem of a dearth of lawyers who were qualified to give the kind of advice which is in question before many of the tribunals that we had in mind, particularly in poverty law, because this subject is not included in many legal courses. And when it is, it is frequently an optional subject which does not often commend itself to students. There is a ready reason for that. The people who are most likely to avail themselves of this kind of expertise are the very people who are not in a position to pay for it, and clearly there is no incentive, in the absence of legal aid, for anyone to acquire this kind of learning as a method of earning a living.
It has been a revelation to me since that debate to discover how many people there are in the legal profession who, for a moderate remuneration, are prepared to serve in local legal advice centres. I have had a number of young solicitors who have either just qualified or are about to qualify, writing and asking where they can find employment in a local advice centre. Perhaps it is time that someone said that there is a real degree of altruism amongst certain sections of the legal profession, which is often unnoticed and unsung, perhaps because the legal profession is notoriously bad at arguing its own case.
If it is suggested that legal aid has expanded into all the fields where there is a need, one look at what is going on in many local advice centres will quickly disabuse anyone of that impression. There would not be any local advice centres if that were true, and certainly the fact that they are as busy as they are proves the converse. That is due partly to the reasons which we discussed earlier this evening, that the financial limits of the service are too narrow, partly because of the psychological barriers which we discussed on Second Reading, but partly, too, because there are spheres in which advice is clearly needed but is not being provided within the scheme. There is growing up, however, a body of lawyers who are prepared and qualified to give advice of this kind.
It is not a reflection on any tribunal to say that it would find a difficulty within the confines of the adversary system in taking instructions from one party during a hearing and, as it were, descend into the arena and argue the case for that party. And it is difficult within the confines of a heavy case list to sort out all the relevant facts where the inarticulate appear for themselves. This particularly true among one group of tribunals.
There has been supplied to some hon. Members who took part in the Committee deliberations an excellent memorandum from the Citizen's Advice Office, and this memorandum comments particularly on some of the supplementary benefit appeals tribunals. Often the tribunal does not have the advantage of a legally qualified chairman and must therefore rely for such advice as it can command on either the Commissioners' own officer, who is bound to be seen in some cases by the litigant as being on the other side, or by the clerk employed by the Department of Social Services, who is under instructions not to participate in the hearing. The memorandum indicates occasions when these officials, for understandable reasons and within the limitations of their position, have given legal advice which, to put it at its lowest, has been questionable.
It is perhaps not without significance that whereas the national average for successful appeals to the tribunal is 20 per cent., the average of successful appeals for those represented by the Citizens' Advice Office is 70 per cent. Partly no doubt that arises because the Citizens' Advice Office can assist the tribunal by weeding out the non-starters, but it must reflect a degree of failure to present a case when 80 per cent. of those who appear unrepresented go away having lost their cases.
I have come across an example in my constituency in the last week. There is at the moment in a substantial factory in my area a strike, and last weekend I was discussing with some members of the strike committee the experience of strikers when presenting themselves for supplementary benefit. The merits of the strike or of the claim for benefit are not relevant to this debate and I shall not pursue them, if only because I am at present instituting inquiries into what I

have been told about this matter and those inquiries have not yet been concluded.
One thing is incontrovertible from the experience of these men. It is that when many of them presented themselves for benefit, they were sent away empty handed, but when they returned shortly afterwards with a spokesman from the Citizens' Advice Office or the Claimants' Union, their claims were met. This is at national insurance officer level. It is therefore clear that a number of claims are being met when someone from the Citizens' Advice Office or the Claimants' Union is available to articulate the matter and argue the case, but are not being met when the layman is confronted with a mass of regulations through which he cannot hope to find his way unaided and when he is left to his own devices.
Unhappily, the Citizens' Advice Office and the Claimants' Union do not have the resources to provide assistance in all the cases where they are required. We are simply inviting the Lord Advocate tonight to consider making such assistance available under this scheme.
What is suggested here is that the Lord Chancellor should have power to consider when and whether this kind of assistance should be provided and that he should have power to decide for which tribunal it should be provided. We are not asking for any firm undertakings about this being universally implemented or even implemented to any specified degree.
The Opposition are merely offering the Government an opportunity to take this power. They make it not only without our opposition but with our blessing. That is an unusual situation these days. We simply ask that the Lord Advocate accept this power and enable the legal profession to give a service which many members of the profession want to give.

10.30 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) has returned to a theme which he developed with skill and conviction in Committee. At that stage he was on a much broader base and was seeking a much wider application of this scheme to cover representation before tribunals. The Amendment


is modestly drawn and certainly, I respectfully add, skilfully argued. But it comes down to this. I quote the words as I noted them from the hon. and learned Gentleman. He would regard this as "a promising beginning for representation before tribunals." This is the difficulty about the Amendment, or any Amendment framed on these lines, because it runs contrary to the provisions of Clause 2(3). Subsection (3) specifically excludes tribunals from the ambit of assistance. The subsection applies equally to employed solicitors as it does to solicitors in ordinary practice. So what the hon. and learned Member is seeking to do, in a rather ingenious way, is to broaden the scope of the scheme.
Of course, it is only a power that we are being asked to take. We do not have to use it. But I presume that by giving us the power, the hon. and learned Gentleman would expect it to be used. There would be no point in offering it if it were not anticipated that it would be used. To use it would go beyond the scope of this scheme and would, for that matter, go beyond the scope of the principal scheme.
Clause 2 enables solicitors—those private practices operating the scheme or solicitors employed under this part of the Bill—to assist a client in proceedings before a tribunal so long as they do not themselves appear. The hon. and learned Member is seeking to edge that little bit further forward—a short but significant step—to permitting employed solicitors to represent clients.
In conclusion, I refer to a passage in Appendix A of the Report of the Advisory Committee on the better provision of Legal Advice and Assistance to which I referred in Committee. The House ought to be aware of this. The whole question of representation before tribunals was considered by the Advisory Committee and it came out very firmly against it. The Committee said:
We have also considered whether assistance should extend to representation outside the compass of the Legal Aid Scheme. We do not think it should extend to representation before tribunals pending the further research we invited in our Seventeenth Report.
The report continues with the significant addition:

Assistance can, of course, include advising the client on how he should proceed to bring the matter before a tribunal and briefing him on the facts or law of evidence which are relevant. We believe that this will be of considerable assistance to those appearing before tribunals and the experience gained in this work will eventually be of assistance in deciding to what tribunals full legal aid should be extended.
The hon. and learned Gentleman knows my personal view on this problem generally because I have stated it fairly clearly. But, at the risk of drawing modest protest from the Opposition benches, I am bound to say that this is not the moment to extend the scheme in this way. If it is to be done, the proper way to do it is by operation of the legal aid scheme—in any event, certainly not to extend the scope of this scheme until further experience has been gained by advice and assistance which is competent, albeit behind the scenes, within the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. John Fraser: The Lord Advocate knows in advance that we find that answer disappointing. We recognise the problems of extending legal aid to all tribunals. The manpower may not exist. Some tribunals may be better off without lawyers because with them they may lose informality. We cannot lay down as a general rule that there should be legal aid for people appearing before tribunals. All that we seek to do is to give the Government the power to act when the need arises.
To deal briefly with the principle, we are advocating a concept which has had its supporters in the House since 1949. A number of quotations were made in Committee, and I made one on Second Reading, from what Mr. Manningham-Buller, as he then was, said in 1949. He said that it was a great pity that the 1949 scheme did not extend to tribunals. In 1949, when the scheme was initiated, the importance which tribunals would assume could not have been foreseen.
I repeat the outstanding example that, whereas legal aid is available for a man who wants to recover a £20 debt in the county court, it is not available for a man who is claiming up to £4,160 compensation before the industrial tribunal and who may be faced with a problem which affects his livelihood and his reputation and which may result from the


most important and disastrous thing which has ever happened to him.
The difficulty is that, unless the scheme is extended to representation before tribunals, the citizen will be trying to enforce a right, often against the State, with one arm tied against his back. I will give two brief examples. I have here details of an industrial injuries tribunal case. It runs to page after page after page. It is not just a matter of law. It is a matter of reading the papers, understanding them, and marshalling the facts. Assessing the medical evidence and reading the correspondence is a very considerable task for a layman. It needs not only legal advice but legal training in the marshalling of facts.

The Lord Advocate: The claimant can get advice on how to present his case. The Bill gives him assistance which he does not have at present.

Mr. Fraser: I know that. I have spent time as a Member of Parliament coaching people on how to present their case before tribunals. A fit of nerves to which they may be subject and their lack of training and confidence means that they cannot conduct the case properly.
A constituent came to me last Friday bringing to me details of her claim for sickness benefit. She must read passages such as this:
It follows that sickness benefit is not payable for the period under consideration. The claimant was not incapable of work in terms of Section 20(1)(a)(ii) (compare Decision R(S) 11/51).
Faced with such jargon a lay person is totally unable adequately to represent himself. These cases are often important and difficult cases in which justice will not be done unless there is legal aid and representation.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I was sorry to hear the Lord Advocate roll out the old argument, which he rolled out somewhat successfully in terms of votes but unsuccessfully in terms of persuasion in Committee, that people who go before tribunals can receive advice. What the Lord Advocate fails to recognise, and what the Advisory Committee failed to recognise, is the nature of the people who go before tribunals. Each of us at our surgery tries to advise such people. Those of us who are in local solicitors' practices try to help these people along these lines.
Most of them are inarticulate and nervous and feel intimidated, whether rightly or wrongly. When they appear before rent assessment panels, for example, they face the whole panoply of a landlord's power when they are fighting a large landlord.
It is not good enough to say that somebody can advise them on how to present their case. When they turn up before a tribunal, they face what for them is a court. They are frequently intimidated. They find it impossible to deal with the arguments which are frequently adduced by trained lawyers, surveyors, and even accountants.
How can they deal with these matters successfully? Groups of tenants who form associations find themselves able to fight landlords with great success before rent tribunals and rent assessment panels, but individual tenants are almost powerless. Statistical information suggests very clearly that unrepresented tenants are at a considerable disadvantage. I cannot feel that the Lord Advocate has assimilated these arguments properly. He says that the Advisory Committee is against representation before tribunals. But the Franks Committee supported it. Mr. Manningham-Buller, as he then was, supported it and the national organisation of the Citizen's Advice Bureaux came out very strongly in favour of it. particularly before rent tribunals and rent assessment panels.
For my part I am persuaded by those organisations, such as the Citizen's Advice Bureaux, which deal with these matters, and whose experiences are similar to those of myself and many of my hon. Friends. I hope in the due course that the Lord Advocate and the Government will recognise that there is a force in these arguments and that experience will cause them to change their ways.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Lord Advocate.]

10.43 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I would not wish to detain the House long at this stage of the evening, but it is desirable that we take stock and look at the Bill as it now is. at any rate for a short time. The explanatory memorandum of the Bill


begins by saying that its purpose is to give effect to the recommendations of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee's report (Cmnd. 4249) and it was that to which we had to have regard through all our detailed and technical discussion. The test we must apply is whether it fulfils the aims of the report.
The report sets out the problem which the Advisory Committee was seeking to solve. It did so on page 3 when it said—and I emphasise this because it is not a party matter, as the report made clear, and it was a point upon which lawyers in both main political parties were agreed:
All those who have considered the matter agree that there are people who would benefit by going to a solicitor but who do not do so. The reasons why they do not do so are generally thought to be
—and then it sets out five reasons. They are defects in the existing Legal Advice Scheme; insufficient publicity; lack of solicitors in the areas concerned; reluctance to consult a solicitor; and failure to recognise that legal remedies may be available. The report says:
We agree that people fail to get the legal help they need for one or more of these reasons.
The report of the Society of Labour Lawyers, "Justice for All", which was extensively referred to in the report of the Advisory Committee, states this in more dramatic terms. It says:
In our view, poverty, ignorance, fatalism and fear, in combination with the present structure of the legal profession, result in the denial of legal services to many, especially to working class residents, in the largest conurbations of this country.
We do not wish to suggest that the problem affects only the poorest section of the community; in some respects it affects consumers generally.
There was a footnote on that page quoting Mr. Seton Pollock of the Law Society who made the remarkable statement at a conference of the Society of Labour Lawyers in 1968 that
When we
—the Law Society—
received approval for advice posters to be put up in only some of the Post Offices of the country for only one month, about 18 months ago, the result was an immediate 34 per cent increase in the volume of advice given. As one might expect, in the ensuing six months the figures gradually dropped away until they reached almost the same position as before.

The Bill is intended to solve the problem of a need which is not met, of people who require assistance with legal problems which in many cases they do not even recognise as legal problems and which the Advisory Committee Report rightly says are in any event so often only part of the social problem. The report rightly says on page 8:
Legal assistance is a particular form of social service. The flow should be from the social services directing legal problems to the lawyers and not from the legal service to the social services.
We must ask ourselves how far the Bill deals with that problem. Of course, it makes some small contribution, but, notwithstanding some measure of expansion which has taken place as a result of our pressure in Committee and in the House. its contribution is very small.

Mr. Peter Archer: I seek to intervene at this stage only to spare the House a speech later. The Government should receive credit for having listened to one debate in Committee, when some of us pressed that consideration should be given to extending the scheme to Northern Ireland. I heard today that the authorities responsible are beginning consultations with that in view. I thought it only right that those responsible should be told that many people are very grateful for that.

Mr. Silkin: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. That is at least a step forward. But the contribution the Bill makes to solving the problems so clearly set out in the Advisory Committee's Report is very minor. The Government have been timid to a degree in moving along the path towards solving those problems. The £25 scheme will help a little, but, broadly speaking, the help that it will give will not be to persuade people who are reluctant to consult a solicitor to do so. It will not be to help people who fail to recognise that legal remedies may be available to recognise that they are available. I do not believe that it will be to induce solicitors who are not in areas where they are needed by the disadvantaged and the poor to enter those areas. It requires something far more than a £25 scheme to help in that direction.
What it will do—and this is, I think, conceded in our debates—is to give a


sort of entry to the Legal Aid Scheme, perhaps in some way a simpler entry than exists at the moment, and no doubt it will be convenient for that reason in the case of people who in any event are going to consult solicitors. They will be able to get their advice more quickly than they otherwise would. To a large extent what Part I of the Bill at any rate will be doing is to remove from the ambit of the existing Legal Aid Scheme those steps which would otherwise have been the initial steps which would have been taken under that scheme. That is going nowhere near to solving the problems to which the Advisory Committee referred.
The only part of the Bill which could go a major way towards solving these problems is Part II. Yet it is Part II in respect of which the Government say, "We are not going to operate it now; we are going to wait and see." The Solicitor-General, in the absence of the Lord Advocate in Committee, made it clear that the Government had no intention of operating Part II at this stage.
I will tell the Government what is happening and will happen as a result. What is happening and what will happen is that, instead of the Government spending money on making advice and assistance and legal aid available through the machinery of the Law Society's local centres, as provided for in Part II, the same centres will be set up, in some cases are being set up, through the use of private funds and will exist in a precarious way trying to do a job, and trying to do it by the help of those young idealistic lawyers to whom my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton referred, but unable to do all the things they would like to do through lack of means.
In addition to that, and more important—we see it happening both in London and elsewhere—because of the gap the Government have left, we see that the local authorities are setting up and will set up the sort of organisations which are provided for in the Bill, because they realise the need which exists and accept very fully, particularly with the development of the social services, what the report of the Advisory Committee says—that legal assistance is after all only a particular form of social service, and one which, in the case of the poor and the

disadvantaged, must be closely linked with the social services.
We are, therefore, most disappointed that the Government have not seen lit to say that they will operate Part II of the Bill rapidly or, in default of that, that they will give assistance to those bodies that are prepared to do the same thing in a private capacity or through a local authority and so on. I have no doubt that unless and until we reach the point at which we are setting up, in the areas where the disadvantaged sections of our community live, centres closely connected with the social services, where people can go for advice both on legal matters and on social problems—very often the same question involving both together—in large numbers throughout the country, the problems which the report highlighted will not be solved, and this Bill will go only a very little way towards solving those problems, which are of such great importance to so large a section of the community.

10.55 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) is rather pessimistic in his account of the effect which the Bill will undoubtedly have in solving the problems which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise. No one suggests that a Bill or proposals of this nature will solve the deep-rooted problems, to some of which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred.
Some of the problems are inducing or enabling people to recognise that they have a legal problem and to realise that they can and should consult a solicitor before more serious developments take place.
I do not criticise the Opposition for seeking throughout the whole course of the debates in Committee and in the House today to extend the scope of the scheme to encourage and demand that the Government should spend more money and do more than they are doing. This is the prerogative of all Oppositions. All Oppositions complain that the Government are not doing enough.
I submit that the Bill is a major step forward in filling a gap which has existed since legal aid was introduced in 1949. It is a measure which will have a major


impact in the area to which it is directed.
I should like to thank all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have made such valuable contributions to our debates on the Bill and for their courtesy to me.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

AGRICULTURE (WINTER KEEP GRANT)

10.57 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): I beg to move,
That the Winter Keep (Scotland) Variation Scheme, 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd May, be approved.
The scheme, which applies only to Scotland, gives effect to the decision announced in the White Paper on the Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees 1972 (Cmnd. 4928) to increase the winter keep acreage grants payable to Scottish farmers by 50p per acre. This increase and the increases in the winter keep headage payments also announced in the White Paper are intended, in the case of hill farming, to replace the reduction in the fertiliser subsidy.
Since the introduction of the alternative winter keep subsidy in 1967, Scottish farmers who qualify for winter keep assistance have been given the option each year of receiving subsidy either as headage supplements or as acreage payments on crops grown for winter feed. Those who choose acreage payments also receive a small supplementary headage payment on their sheep which qualify for hill sheep subsidy. The object of having two methods of paying winter keep subsidy in Scotland is to provide for the wide variations in Scottish conditions and enable each farmer to receive the assistance in the most suitable form. Since 1967 the number of applications for acreage grant has fallen each year, but about a quarter of the 13,500 eligible farmers in Scotland still choose acreage payments, and we consider this to be a reasonable level of demand.
We estimate that the increase in the rates of acreage grant provided for in this

scheme will benefit the farmers who choose assistance in this form by about £77,000 in a full year and that they will gain a further £13,000 from the increase in the special supplement payable on their hill sheep. Farmers who choose the headage option are expected to benefit by about £408,000 from the increase in the headage payments on cattle and sheep. These figures are, of course, estimates and the benefit to the individual will depend on the way in which he decides to take up the winter keep subsidy. I can say, however, that the estimated effect of the increases, which were agreed with the Scottish National Farmers' Union, will offset the reduction in the fertiliser subsidy for Scottish hill farmers. Crofters and occupiers of similar economic status will benefit from comparable increases in the crafting grants by an estimated £73,000 in a full year.
This scheme, as I said earlier, provides only for the increase in the rates of acreage payments. Orders giving effect to the increases in the headage payments for hill cows have been laid before the House, and the orders to give effect to the increases in headage payments for hill and upland sheep, which will relate to sheep in flocks at 4th December, 1972, will be laid later this year.
I commend the scheme to the House for approval.

11 p.m.

Mr. Gavin Strang: The Under-Secretary has rightly explained that the purpose of the increased rates of grant to be paid under the Winter Keep Scheme is to compensate for the substantial cut in fertiliser subsidy.
The cut in the subsidy was debated earlier this week, and I have no intention of going over that ground again, but it is fair to point out that the farmers agreed to the cut in the subsidy in order to obtain the increases in the end prices which they obtained.
The general position in agriculture as a whole is that the cut in the fertiliser subsidy is compensated by the increase in prices. Hill farmers will also benefit from these increased hill Prices. The increased guarantee prices should be reflected in higher store prices for lambs and cattle, but the importance of the increase in this scheme lies in the fact that the Government are accepting that


these higher prices alone are not sufficient to compensate hill farmers for the cuts in the fertiliser subsidy.
In other words, the Government are admitting that hill farmers are a special case and therefore require special measures. It must be put on record that the Opposition hope that the Government will continue with this approach to hill farming in the next few years and that when cuts are made in other production grants as a consequence of joining the Common Market, they will see that compensatory measures are introduced specially for hill farmers.
This is not a controversial scheme and we support it, but there are a number of questions which I should like to ask the Under-Secretary. The first is simply whether he could explain in a little more detail how the Government came to decide on the increase of 50p per acre? Let me illustrate this point with a small example. Let us take a hill farmer who grows hay or silage for his hill sheep or cattle and applies 60 units of nitrogen and that fertiliser costs him about £40 per ton. According to my calculations, if we suppose further that the composition of the fertiliser is 23:11:11, the increased cost per acre to that farmer, I reckon, would be about 60p.
The Government have given an increase of 50p on acreage payment and in addition the hill farmer will get an increased price for the stores as a result of the increased deficiency payment and finally an increased supplementary payment per head, but surely the Under-Secretary should be prepared to give some criteria and considerations which led him to make this increase in price.
Now, my second question. The scheme is scheduled to run until the end of 1974. Although there has been a drop over the five years 1967–71 of about one third in the number of applications for these acreage grants, and a fall of about a quarter in the acreage, this is still, as the hon. Gentleman said, a valuable scheme and a substantial proportion of hill farmers in Scotland choose to receive their winter keep subsidies in this form. Since we are now almost in the middle of 1972, it is not unreasonable to ask whether the Government intend to allow the scheme to run its full course.
My third question relates to the Common Market. The Government's position has always been that they have received an assurance from the Community that it appreciates the problems of our hill farmers and it will allow the United Kingdom Government to take action to protect them. Some time ago, when I wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture to ask whether the Government had received a specific assurance regarding the various production grants——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that he is now going beyond the scope of the scheme. He ought not to continue on that subject in his speech, and, equally, the Minister would be out of order in taking the matter up in reply.

Mr. Strang: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My question was simply this: have the Government received an assurance in the negotiations that the winter keep grant could be continued?
The Opposition much regret the substantial cut, the slashing cut, in the rate of fertiliser subsidy, but, given that cut, we welcome that the Government have at least taken these special measures to protect our hill farmers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the Minister will not accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation to leave Scotland for Europe.

Mr. William Ross: Either now or at any other time.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) for his welcome to the scheme. I feel that I ought to begin by declaring an interest—I declared it frequently in opposition—as a recipient of hill cow subsidy and hill ewe subsidy. That is still my position.
The hon. Gentleman asked how the figure of 50p per acre was arrived at. It was reached after negotiations. The increase, along with the increase in the special supplement payable on hill sheep on farms which qualify for the acreage grant, was agreed with the Scottish National Farmers' Union as providing broad comparability with the increases


in the headage payments. It is difficult to explain the detailed formula which was used, but it was done in agreement with the Scottish NFU.
Next, the hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government intended to let the scheme run to its end in 1974. I assure him that we have no proposals at the present time to alter it.
Third, the hon. Gentleman asked—I say just a brief word, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in view of your ruling—whether the grant will be continued following our entry into the European Economic Community. Hon. Members will recall the assurances given in the House by the Minister of Agriculture that we shall, after entry into the Community, be able to continue a system for the maintenance of the incomes of our hill farmers. The position has not changed since the Price Review.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Winter Keep (Scotland) Variation Scheme, 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd May, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

CIVIL LIBERTIES

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: One advantage which I have derived from waiting for the last two Adjournment debates in which I have participated is to have acquired a remarkable knowledge about the drainage of marsh lands and Scottish hill farming. I wish to raise a problem more close to people in an urban environment, and that is the question of civil liberties.
Three weeks ago theSunday Timescarried an article in which it was suggested that the notorious Special Powers Act in Northern Ireland would be abolished and replaced by an emergency powers Act which would cover the whole of the United Kingdom. I should like to know whether there is any truth in this suggestion.
Yesterday, in The Times there was a well argued if rather impassioned response

at the frightening suggestion that the Government will bring forward a new criminal justice Bill which will do away with the police caution, which will compel a defendant not only to give evidence but to answer police questions when he is not in the presence of a legal adviser, and also, perhaps most worrying of all, will allow the introduction of previous convictions as part of the evidence in criminal proceedings. Every one of these impinges on the liberty of the individual and puts at risk the traditional concept that a prosecution must be proved by the prosecution.
In many ways, we are receiving the overspill of the repressive legislation which existed in Northern Ireland and which allows for such horrifying things as the refusal of a right to a coroner's inquest in the case of a person who dies in police custody. One cannot have internment without trial in one part of the United Kingdom or allow ill treatment or brutality and one can argue the semantics of the Compton R eport—with out it having some effects over here.
Not least of those effects was the unprecedented police raid not long ago following in the wake of the terrible atrocity at Aldershot but apparently using this as a pretext to go on "fishing" raids in the houses of over 50 people who, I understand, belong to a political organisation with which I have no sympathy but which, to my knowledge, does not agree with violence in Northern Ireland or over here. The use of the Criminal Damage Act to facilitate this raid was a frightening invasion of civil liberty which should not be repeated.
The repressive straws in the wind are mirrored by what must have been an unintentional slip by the Lord Chancellor in appearing to suggest that over-severe sentencing is not harmful because of the right of appeal. The Minister of State will know all too well the fallacy of that. But the fact that, say, Trafalgar Square is banned to those who want to protest against internment whereas 103 years ago 100,000 people assembled there for exactly the same purpose regarding Irish prisoners shows that we have not travelled a long way along the road towards civil liberty in over a century and that civil liberty with regard to the right to assembly has diminished.
Those who are concerned, as I am, about civil liberty are not anti-authority; we are not anti-police. I observe the police daily and I know that the work which they carry out is often thankless and often very dangerous. In the main, they carry out their job with a great deal of patience and very good humour—the wry sort of humour which we have come to expect of men faced with their sort of problems. I have always believed that the police force should be highly paid, highly efficient and well trained, with a career structure which brings in recruits of a high calibre. Those who make blanket attacks on the police are being as foolish as those who make blanket attacks on any group of people in society.
But that is not to say that the public is not disturbed at recent events in towns such as Leeds or in the Metropolis itself. While I welcome the new broom at the Metropolitan Police, I am still totally dissatisfied with the attitude of the previous Government and this Government to independent complaints machinery, where complaints are made against the police force.
One other cause of concern is that offences such as riot and affray and offences under the Public Order Act are being increasingly employed where a simple breach of the peace has been occasioned. The use of the Public Order Act, as amended by the Race Relations Act, in the case of someone who has used highly colourful language on top of a bus or his misbehaved himself on the pavement is using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. One sees this all too often in reports, just as one saw the curious spectacle in the Mangrove trial of a serious charge having been dismissed by the justices and being reintroduced at a later stage.
Following from that, there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction about the way in which the police have handled problems connected with immigrants in certain parts of London—and not only immigrants. If the hon. and learned Gentleman were to don a somewhat longer wig than that to which he is accustomed and were to walk down the Portobello Road tonight he would without doubt be suspected of carrying cannabis. The evidence we have had from the Canadian State Commission, the United States of

America and the report that is in the hands of the Home Office but which has not been made public—apart from the Wootton Report—shows that there is need for public debate and public education on this habit, which appears to be far less pernicious than consuming alcohol in large quantities or smoking cigarettes in great numbers. The problem is one of the generation gap and a difference in attitudes which leaves us in danger of alienating another generation. I am not for one moment suggesting that it would be right to legalise cannabis. I am asking for a rational approach to the subject and for a directive from the Home Office to those who administer the law and who seem to have little knowledge of the realities of the subject.
Not long ago, I visited a prisoner at Brixton who was on a cannabis charge. He had spent three months in prison without coming up for trial. We have heard recently of persons who spent up to 10 months in prison without having been tried. I thank the Minister for his helpful replies to the many Questions I have asked him and for the courteous and helpful letters he has written to me. He said in a recent parliamentary reply that 29,267 persons remanded in custody received no immediate custodial sentence, and that 2,472 persons remanded in custody were acquitted. That means that almost 32,000 places in our overcrowded prisons were taken up by persons who were not subsequently sentenced to terms of imprisonment.
When magistrates refuse bail without stating why, the liberty of the subject is put at risk. Magistrates should state their reasons for refusing bail just as the reason for a decision in a civil matter in a civil court is stated, and there should be a right of appeal against that decision. Bail is so easily refused, merely on the words of a police officer.
I am concerned not only about bail applied for before trial but bail applied for after conviction on a previous minor offence. I remember the case of a man who, having been sentenced for a first offence—the father of five—was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. His appeal came up after five months. He had served five months imprisonment, which would have been six months imprisonment with remission, when the


verdict was quashed, and the man had no redress.
I know of the efforts being made by the use of the Crown Court system to cut down the waiting list. Even so, the waiting list at Middlesex or Inner London Sessions, and the events which have occurred at Brixton recently show that far too many persons are kept waiting for trial who may subsequently not be sentenced to terms of imprisonment, and that in itself is an inroad into the rights of the citizen who up to that point is innocent until proven otherwise. Some of the persons to whom the answer may relate may be persons who have been found to he guilty and are awaiting sentence. That is what the Minister is quite rightly referring to.
Those who see these things in the courts know all too well that it happens in magistrates' courts in particular that persons are remanded in custody for a report when there is no justification for such a remand. Too often there is a tendency for the attitude to be, "Let us give the man a taste of prison and then not sentence him to prison after that". That is wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) is sitting here patiently. On many occasions he has drawn attention to the curious difference in attitudes in magistrates' courts towards legal aid, not least with regard to the extraordinary figures at Marlborough Street. This is another case where the liberty of the subject is in jeopardy by reason of the discretion exercised by those who sit in courts of law. I know that only recently one of my hon. Friends wrote to the Minister about one magistrates' court where the attitude in regard to drug cases was, "The man should not have legal aid because if he can afford to buy drugs he can afford his own defence". So much for the presumption of innocence until a man is proved guilty.
I am sure the Minister would be the first to agree—and a great deal was said about this in an earlier debate on legal aid—that in exercising that discretion the Home Office should advise magistrates and others that the right to mitigation is an important right; that it can bring out relevant facts before the court which might otherwise not come out.
A person who is about to plead guilty may find that he has a defence in law of which he was not aware, and all too often the fact that a man apparently intends to plead guilty, or apparently does not have a defence, influences the granting of legal aid. I think that the introduction of a duty solicitor, or an English equivalent to the Procurator Fiscal who would carry out prosecutions in magistrates' courts so that they would no longer be regarded as police courts with policemen prosecuting would add to the confidence of the ordinary citizen.
I am conscious that I have ranged over a wide area and a large number of topics which I think would be fitting for a day's debate. The problem is that there will never be time for a day's debate on this subject, however much one asks for it during business questions.
The reason for these incursions—or threatened incursions—into civil liberties are very much, in some cases at any rate, generated by the violence across the Irish Sea and its repercussions here, and also by the mindless rantings of the law and order lobby which are very disturbing in the sort of suggestions which they are putting forward.
So long as these practices to which I have alluded go on the average citizen will not feel that justice is being done and being seen to be done, particularly in our lower courts. Far from narrowing the degree of freedom, a Bill of Rights on the eve of our entry into Europe would be something of an advantage. We often pride ourselves on the fact that we do not have a written constitution. Perhaps a Bill of Rights would be appropriate at this time, especially as we are not able to sign the European Convention of Human Rights because of the derogation in one part of the United Kingdom. Our legal system has a great deal to offer Europe when we eventually enter the EEC, but a repressive and unimaginative approach to civil liberties, bearing in mind our reputation in this regard and our traditional freedoms, would affect us seriously.
I hope we will be given an assurance on the question of an Emergency Powers Bill and a future Criminal Justice Bill so as to restore the confidence of the House and a great many people who are disturbed over this matter, and we hope


that the Minister will continue with the liberal lead which he has given in the past and will thereby show that the Government are intent on preserving rather than narrowing our traditional liberties.

11.26 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) say that he thought he had covered a full day's debate in his quarter-hour speech. I thought he covered several days' debates. I will do my best to reply to the points he made, but I cannot promise in 15 minutes to cover all of them.
I must first make a general point. While of course I accept his concern, and the right of people to be concerned, about anything which appears to be an encroachment of our civil liberties, it is equally important always to remember when discussing this subject that unless the laws of a society are respected and enforced, it will be difficult for its members to enjoy their liberties. One has the perpetual problem in a free society of obtaining the right balance between freedom and order and how to reconcile the freedom of the individual with the obligations of the citizen.
The hon. Gentleman first asked about theSunday Times article about the Special Powers Act. I am told that the background to this is that a group of staff and students at the faculty of law at Queen's University, Belfast, made a recent study of the Act and suggested possible statutory provisions. In particular they suggested that in place of the Act a new Emergency Powers Act for the whole of the United Kingdom should be adopted under which an emergency in any part of the United Kingdom would be dealt with.
That was merely a suggestion put forward by an informal committee at Queen's University under Professor Twining. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made it clear during the passage of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act that he proposed to review the 1922 Act and the regulations made under it. That is being done and my right hon. Friend will, of course, take into account the valuable report produced by Professor Twining's group. But he has made no decision on

the nature of any possible new legislation and there is nothing to support the allegations made in the Sunday Times—which, indeed, were repeated by the hon. Gentleman in a weekly newspaper—about any decision having been taken or that it will at any time be decided that any new legislation should necessarily apply to this country.
The hon. Gentleman then questioned me about police cautions and previous convictions, and I assume he was referring to the report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. I wish to make it absolutely clear that there are considerable misapprehensions about this. Despite various reports that have appeared in the newspapers, this particular report has not yet been submitted to the Home Secretary. I am, therefore, not in a position to comment on its possible contents, save to say, in relation to the comment about previous convictions, that when this originally appeared the chairman of the committee specifically stated that it was not the committee's intention, in its report, to recommend that the evidence of previous convictions of an accused person should be generally admissible. The hon. Member's comments about police cautions and other matters will all be considered by the committee, but I do not think that we can look upon it as a Draconian body which is likely to make serious inroads into our personal freedom.
I believe that this report is badly needed and that the test that the Government must apply when they receive the report is to ask themselves the question: have we the right balance in our criminal trials between the prosecution and the defence? Do the rules with regard to evidence and to questioning—many of which were introduced in a previous century to safeguard the innocent in a substantially illiterate public—maintain the right balance, in the circumstances of 1972? That is the background against which we have to consider that report. I am not prepared to comment on the contents of a report which neither the Home Secretary nor myself has seen.
I move to the next point made by the hon. Gentleman. I accept that the prosecution case must always be proved by the prosecution in our courts, but that does not necessarily mean that all the rules with! regard to questioning and the caution are right in their present form. The hon.


Member criticised the fishing raids under the Criminal Damage Act, 1971, and said that this was a frightening incursion upon our civil liberties. All that that Act does is to allow the police, with a warrant obtained from a court, to search premises if they have reason to believe that there are on those premises goods that are to be used in causing damage to property. Before a search can be made a warrant must be obtained from a magistrate in the normal way, and an individual who believes that his premises have been wrongly searched has various remedies.
I apologise for rushing, but the hon. Member raised many questions. He referred to the use of Trafalgar Square for political demonstrations. It has always been accepted that this is one of the best-known places for public demonstrations, and traditionally it is available to any individual or organisation that wishes to use it. Permission to use the Square is usually given unless it seems likely that the assembly will result in breaches of the law, or in grave disorder. As the hon. Member knows, the decision is that of the Secretary of State for the Environment, who invariably consults the appropriate Government Departments, and always consults the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
The position with regard to applications this year in relation to demonstrations concerned with the Irish situation is that such applications had to be considered against the background of the terrorist campaign by the IRA in Northern Ireland and the appalling outrage at Aldershot. In those circumstances, in view of the situation in Northern Ireland, the Government had to decide whether it would be fitting to permit the use of the Square by any organisation that had declared its support for the perpetrators of violence of that kind, and they had no hesitation in deciding that it would not be fitting, and that it would be an affront to the British people to do so.
The Government having made that decision, it would be wrong to attempt to distinguish between different organisations. The right decision, therefore—regrettable as it may be—was to refuse to grant permission for any demonstration on the issue of Northern Ireland in Trafalgar Square until further notice.
The hon. Member asked about the police, and referred to the Leeds police force. He said that he has always been a good friend of the police. I remind him that the fundamental conclusion of Sir John McKay in his personal report to the Home Secretary—a report on which he has made an announcement—was that there was nothing basically wrong with the Leeds police force. Of course I accept that there had been one or two disturbing incidents which gave rise to that report.
As to the Public Order Act, I cannot see the hon. Member's complaint. As I understand it, Section 5 of that Act, which makes an offence conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace, has been a normal method for many years of dealing with offences of hooliganism. I do not believe that it is used more widely now than it has been in recent years.
The hon. Member then came to a subject on which I am perhaps a little more familiar and at home when he spoke about the refusal of bail and legal aid. Of course I accept the figures I gave to the hon. Member concerning bail but I think it unfair to assume from them—and I have said this on many occasions from this Box—that because many of the people who are refused bail eventually do not receive a custodial sentence the magistrates have been wrong in refusing them bail in the first place.
There are those who will be committed for trial when, on the evidence before them before that stage, the magistrates feel that it is wrong to remand other than in custody although their innocence may eventually be proved. There are those who, after being convicted, are remanded for reports. No one would approve of a system in which, as the hon. Member suggested, people are sometimes remanded for reports merely as an excuse to send them to prison for a short time. I do not accept that this is so today.
I remind the hon. Member as a prac-tising lawyer of what I believe is true the other way round: that often the only plea in mitigation which eventually can be made for the person when he gets to quarter sessions on committal is that because of the refusal of bail when he was committed for sentence, he has received a period in prison which has


caused—[Interruption.] The hon. Member laughs. He has made the plea in mitigation many times. It is unfair then, when the court accepts it and decides to put the person on probation or something like that, to blame the magistrates for wrongly remanding him in custody in the first place.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Mr. Clinton Davis (Hackney, Central)  rose——

Mr. Carlisle: I have only two minutes left to me.
I have always believed, and the Government are attempting to follow the view, that greater inroads will be made into this problem by attempting to reduce the period of time that individuals spend in custody than by reducing the number of individuals who are remanded in custody, although we have, as the hon. Gentleman knows, opened a bail hostel thanks to private generosity and we are taking power under the Criminal Justice Bill to open more hostels.
Finally I turn to legal aid and the duty solicitor. The hon. Member must surely

know that during the last four years grants of legal aid have increased threefold. Over 80 per cent. of applications in magistrates' courts on summary trial are now granted, compared with 70 pet cent. in 1966. The total number has grown from about 20,000 to 60,000. The Government believe—I have made this clear throughout the Bill—that the criteria laid down by the Widgery Committee are well known to the courts.
That leads to this comment. The hon. Member ended by calling for the introduction of a duty solicitor. It is perhaps appropriate that that should have been his final remark after the Legal Advice and Assistance Bill has just passed through the House. I believe that the assistance provided in that Bill with regard to the £25 legal aid and the ability of the solicitor in court to appear for an undefended defendant goes a long way to meet the need for a duty solicitor, as recommended in a recent report by Justice.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to twelve o'clock.